ENVISIONING THE FUTURE OF ADVERTISING CREATIVITY RESEARCH

Alternative Perspectives

ABSTRACT: To provide a future vision of alternative viewpoints moving forward in creativity research, four different perspectives
are offered. The first perspective, “Wildfire 2008: Creativity with a Human Touch,” offers surprising humanistic and individualistic
practitioner insights from breakthrough campaigns. The second viewpoint, “Creative and Effective Advertising: Balancing Spontane-
ity and Discipline,” emphasizes the role of discipline in developing creative advertising that is effective while still being spontaneous.
The third perspective, “Defining the Necessary Components of Creative, Effective Ads,” provides a functional model of how creativity
works in ads. In the last viewpoint, “The Concept of ‘Imaginative Intensity’ in Advertising,” an imaginative intensity concept is offered
for future research consideration as the role of the consumer, agency, and clients change.

WILDFIRE 2008: CREATIVITY WITH A HUMAN TOUCH

Thomas Bernardin and Paul Kemp-Robertson

For the past three years, Leo Burnett Worldwide has partnered
with Contagious Magazine, a global authority in identifying the
ideas, trends, and innovations behind the world’s most revolu-
tionary marketing strategies, to create an in-depth analysis of
the best ideas that “spread and sell.” We’ve termed these ideas
“Wildfire Ideas,” because they become interwoven into the
social fabric. Originally, the partnership aimed to prove that
new marketing works. We wanted to suggest to advertisers
and agencies that it pays to play with fire, and that a return
on investment could be generated by taking risks. We were
urging the industry to trust and invest in the new behaviors
that were (and are) being enjoyed by people.
In fact, Leo Burnett enjoys a long history of studying
best-in-class creativity. Between 1987 and 2002, the agency
conducted four global studies, exploring the correlation be-
tween award-winning advertising and marketplace success.
By identifying the top 100 campaigns of a particular year and
then speaking to the agencies and advertisers behind them, we
Thomas Bernardin (B.A. Marketing, Hillsdale College) is chairman
and CEO, Leo Burnett Worldwide.
Paul Kemp-Robertson (M.Phil., Goldsmiths’ College, Univer-
sity of London) is editor and cofounder of Contagious Magazine,
London.
David W. Stewart (Ph.D., Baylor University) is dean, A. Gary
Anderson Graduate School of Management, University of California,
Riverside.
Yan Cheng (Ph.D. candidate, University of Southern California),
Department of Marketing, Marshall School of Business, University
of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Heather Wan (Ph.D. candidate, University of Southern California),
Department of Marketing, Marshall School of Business, University
of Southern California, Los Angeles.
were able to measure the impact that award-winning work had
on business goals (e.g., increased sales, greater market share,
and improved awareness levels). The results were astonishing.
Across a 15-year span, our studies proved that 86% of award-
winning advertising sells. Clients told us that while ordinary
advertising establishes a brand’s identity, outstanding advertis-
ing is far more effective because it creates an emotional bond
with people. That was then. The advertising universe was
largely confined to television commercials and print. When
Burnett presented the final iteration of the study in Cannes in
2002, Internet advertising commanded a tiny fraction of global
ad spend. The iPod had barely hit the shelves, and cell phones
were things people just used to make phone calls.
When the “Wildfire Mission” began, it was because the
landscape had shifted in a quick and dramatic fashion. In the
blink of an eye, audiences had gone from passive and voiceless
to active and creative. Empowered by technology, people had
quickly taken control. No longer was the marketing landscape
defined by 360-degree communication strategies. Instead, it was
(and still is) being fueled by big, compelling, multisensory ideas
John R. Rossiter (Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania) is a Research
Professor of Marketing, University of Wollongong, Australia.
Sunil Erevelles (Ph.D., Ohio State University) is an associate profes-
sor of marketing, University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
Robert Roundtree (Ph.D., University of Illinois, Urbana–
Champaign) is an assistant professor of marketing, University of
North Carolina at Charlotte.
George M. Zinkhan (Ph.D., University of Michigan) is a Coca-Cola
Company Professor of Marketing, University of Georgia.
Nobuyuki Fukawa (Doctoral Student, Louisiana State University),
Marketing Department, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.
Journal of Advertising, vol. 37, no. 4 (Winter 2008), pp. 131–149.
© 2008 American Academy of Advertising. All rights reserved.
ISSN 0091-3367 / 2008 $9.50 + 0.00.
DOI 10.2753/JOA0091-3367370411
132 The Journal of Advertising
that ignite conversations and weave themselves into people’s
lives. Originally, the focus of the Wildfire study was squarely
on the way in which Wildfire Ideas were changing our clients’
businesses. Then, in 2007, we pinpointed some of the world’s
most successful Wildfire Brands and examined the reasons why
so many people were talking about them. This year, we analyzed
the most important part of the chain that links product with
idea, and campaign with brand. We looked at consumers—or
as we’d rather call them: people. We made this decision because
it was clear to us that today’s most successful brands are put-
ting people back at the heart of everything, from their market-
ing messages to their corporate ethics to their PR strategy.
In fact, the corporate mission at Burnett has been tweaked to
reflect this thinking. The user-generated content wave of 2006
empowered people, and the Internet facilitated the “create and
share” generation. From there, brands and their agency partners
learned to apply the enthusiasm of fan-made material to mar-
keting messages, providing an expert editorial filter to create
high-end content with the help of the people who ultimately
consume it. As we see it, if the 1980s were the “brand era” and
the 1990s were the “idea era,” then today, we’re in the People
Era. It is the age of conversations and connections.
Leo Burnett is taking this observation to heart, evolving
it into what is being called “a HumanKind of Company.” To
reflect the People Era and deliver HumanKind counsel and
ideas for clients, the agency is reorienting the way it thinks,
staffs projects, and determines structure. HumanKind Brands
generate ideas that catch fire—because they speak directly to
the people for whom they were created and leave a channel
open for their reaction and response. So, as part of this year’s
analysis, we looked at brands that boast a truly human at-
titude to their audience. We went searching for what brands
can do to deserve a place in people’s lives. What follows herein
is a collection of brands and behaviors that have a superior
adeptness at bringing people and brands closer together in
meaningful ways.
Wildfire Brands
Sony
In 2007, we commented that the work Fallon/London had cre-
ated for Sony made it Wildfire-worthy. This year, we noted that
the brand still deserved the recognition, having really ramped
up the human factor by creating a community around a new
commercial for its range of cameras weeks before it actually
aired. One hundred bloggers were handed Sony products to
document an extraordinary shoot that saw 460 million liters
of foam unleashed on downtown Miami. Local residents spon-
taneously joined in the fun, uploading some amazing photos
onto Flickr. By involving a community, Sony set out to create
an experience rather than an ad. Those who participated got to
feel a sense of ownership, and the brand got to linger longer
than a typical 30-second commercial would.
Nike
When freestanding, television commercials are a kind of closed
conversation. Social media have paved the way for high-spend-
ing brands like Nike and Adidas to reduce their traditional
media spends, using television more tactically. For example, the
Nike T90 football boot campaign, conceived by Nitro London
still has superstar players. The commercials they appear in are
merely teasers, challenging fans to watch richer entertainment
content on-line or shoot and share their own soccer skills and
upload clips to a public gallery on the T90 site.
Adidas
Adidas equally believes in “Power to the People.” Through
180 Amsterdam, the brand surprised amateur players of all
ages by flying some of the world’s most expensive soccer play-
ers into Europe’s smallest outposts like Andorra and the Isles
of Scilly to join in the sheer fun of the game. These unique,
human experiences formed a 40-minute documentary entitled
“Dream Big,” screened on-line across 12 episodes on the Adi-
das football site.
IKEA
Another idea that we loved came from a strange but true fact:
The IKEA catalogue is now the third-most-printed publication
in the world (after the Bible and Harry Potter novels). For the
first time, the home furnishing giant launched a campaign us-
ing this famous (and obvious) point of connection to make the
experience of visiting their enormous blue and yellow boxes
a little bit more personal. They wanted to increase foot traffic
into the local IKEA, so their agency made an exact 3D replica
of the catalogue cover—including text—and invited people
to have their photos inside. They were then given a unique
code, which they could then redeem in-store to collect their
personalized catalogue. Nearly 56% of people redeemed their
codes, thereby accomplishing their objective.
BRANDED UTILITY
At the heart of the ad industry’s adoption of all things tech-
nological lies something pegged as branded utility. It is the
art of ditching overt marketing messages in favor of services:
providing something useful, relevant, or entertaining that
embeds itself much deeper into everyday life than a 30-second
commercial ever could. Branded utility has been a topic of
industry discourse for several years and this trend is getting
bigger all the time.

O2
For the launch of O2’s Cocoon handset, the phones were sent
to bloggers to test. They also received content and vouchers,
sent via Bluetooth, on arrival at the brand’s entertainment
complex, the O2 Dome in London. One anecdote that we
loved was from a concertgoer who went to see Prince and
was astonished when his phone “woke up” with offers of free
drinks, venue information, and a VIP invitation to chill out
in the brand’s Blue Room Bar.
Wrangler
Wrangler felt that its brand wasn’t resonating with European
youth—partly because its advertising wasn’t in the places
where its audience was spending time. An ingeniously simple
idea reversed this. Wrangler set up guerrilla laundromats at
a number of music festivals. After leaving their dirty clothes
for a free service wash, festivalgoers were given Wrangler-
branded jumpsuits to wear for the rest of the day. Diesel has
done a similar thing, offering people free showers and free
underwear.
Johnnie Walker
Diageo and Ogilvy in Singapore targeted Asian businessmen
with a friendly avatar named “Jennie.” A digital personal as-
sistant, Jennie organizes invites to hip nightclubs and VIP
events via the only communications channel these guys always
carry: their cell phones. Thanks to the wonders of GPS, she
can even order you a cab home at the end of the night, in line
with the brand’s responsible drinking message.
Samsung
Anyone who has ever found themselves sitting on an airport
floor fighting for a plug socket with the cleaning ladies will
appreciate the utility of Samsung’s latest venture. Branded
charging stations have been placed strategically throughout the
airports of the world, so you need never be incommunicado.
Guinness
And speaking of travel, doing so abroad can be tricky: coping
with language barriers and jet lag puts people in a state of
constant confusion. When touring for sporting events, these
effects can be multiplied, thanks to the heady potential of
victory or dramatic failure (mixed with alcohol and adrena-
line, of course). In a nifty campaign to mark its sponsorship
as the official drink of the Hong Kong Sevens rugby tourna-
ment, Guinness turned to OgilvyOne and mobile specialists
The Hyperfactory. Their solution was a mobile application
Winter 2008 133
to help the estimated 20,000 overseas visitors navigate the
city and overcome language barriers. The mobile tool allowed
people to better equip themselves for their experience, in a
user-friendly way—via a branded piece of real estate located
on the one device everyone always has with them.
Nike Plus
Leading the way in people-focused branded activity is Nike
Plus—the company’s groundbreaking “connected product”—
a service that combines an in-shoe microchip with an on-line
information service, creating a personal trainer for each run-
ner. Nike Plus members had run 50 million miles, logged
over 14 million runs, and issued over 450,000 challenges.
After Nike Plus scooped the Cyber Grand Prix in Cannes last
year, Tribal DDB in Hamburg was charged with extending
this experience. The challenge was how to speak to Nike Plus
runners when they’re not plugged into Nike Plus. The solu-
tion was the adorable Miles—a 3D widget that bullies runners
and acts as a 24-hour news and lifestyle feed. In one month,
nearly 8,000 runners downloaded and used the widget.
DIGITAL CREEP
Nike Plus and Guinness widgets are examples of how technol-
ogy is exposing the advertising industry to new possibilities
that reconnect us as people. Since the Internet’s inception, a
lot of press has been given to the idea that social technology
wasn’t good for the social whole since people were spending
too much time on-line interacting with faceless entities rather
than connecting outside in the real world. We disagree with
this view and firmly believe that technology is not cutting
us off. Rather, it’s opening us up.
City of Stockholm
An endearing unbranded example of this is the Emotional
Cities project. Conceived by artist Erik Krikortz, residents
of Stockholm were encouraged to go on-line and answer the
question, “How are you feeling today?” The options ranged
from “Ready to Go Red” to “Pissed-Off Purple.” The city
council combined all the answers and linked up the site to the
five tallest buildings in Stockholm, which were illuminated
by the color of the collective feeling. This made for a real,
communal experience, since at any time, you could see how
the rest of Stockholm was feeling. Now launched in Seoul,
Korea, it will soon be under way in other cities. This shows
that technology adds an extra layer of richness to people’s real
lives. People can change the skin of browsers, cell phones,
and now even buildings! Imagine downtown Manhattan
or Bangkok if brands are given a chance to really express
themselves.
134 The Journal of Advertising
Sony BRAVIA
Sony BRAVIA’s magnificent “Colour Like No Other” position-
ing, established by Fallon, London, was extended into a truly
interactive experience by Hakuhodo in Tokyo with a great
television commercial, and the iconic Sony building in Ginza,
Tokyo. From there, they conceived an ingenious application.
What better way to introduce the notion of “playing color”
than by linking their existing properties on the Web? The
team designed a Web site where visitors could pick a color for
the building, click on it, and in real life (and real time), the
building color would change. All the old marketing staples
are there: a demo, product benefits, a product dramatization.
The difference is that twenty-first century technology has
taken the experience to a whole new level, placing people at
the heart of the marketing.
Coca-Cola China
Again in Asia, Leo Burnett, as part of Coca-Cola’s Red Lounge
unit in Beijing, faced the challenge of standing out among
the pre-Olympic din. Despite being an official sponsor, the
sheer influx of marketing messages made the traditional route
both cluttered and somewhat impersonal. Coca-Cola is an ex-
tremely human brand, so we came up with a human-centered
idea, facilitated by technology. Using over 330,000 LEDs, we
created a “Mega Bottle,” the first time a 360° digital screen
has been wrapped over a contour shape of this scale. User-
generated content and SMS (short message service) messages
could be instantly uploaded to and broadcast live from the
bottle. Messaging was sent to the real world, and media was
redirected into creating a truly newsworthy story that would
spread through word of mouth and on-line. And it did. Coca-
Cola now leads all Olympic sponsors in consumer recall with
a 37% awareness level in China—more than twice that of the
next global brand.
Bebo
The social network Bebo has seized an initiative by reposition-
ing itself as an entertainment platform. Open Media is a site
service that allows content producers free and direct access to
Bebo users in return for providing hours of premium content.
Media brands already signed include BBC, Sky, and CBS.
It’s a brilliant quid pro quo, as Bebo has an attractive audi-
ence, hungry for interesting content. Bebo is also investing
in original content; it commissioned the on-line drama series
KateModern, developed by the team behind LonelyGirl15. The
show followed a London art student and offered opportuni-
ties for brands like Microsoft, Disney, Pantene, Orange, and
Paramount to integrate their products and services directly
into the plot. Brand integration is approved by the Bebo
community beforehand, guaranteeing a responsive audience.
A most successful integration involved Cadbury’s Crème Egg,
as one of Kate’s friends participated in a Crème Egg promotion
at work. Publicis, London brokered the deal that drove a 14%
rise in sales for the brand. KateModern is the kind of content for
which the Web was invented—episodic, high-octane drama
distributed via a content platform with a built-in community.
Naturally, the audience interacts with the cast and writers via
Bebo. Series one and two drew an impressive 57 million views,
an average of 1.5 million per episode. Episodes cost £6,000 to
film, resulting in a $400,000 profit for the first series. High-
margin revenue was split between Bebo and the production
team. Virgin Atlantic paid for an in-flight television channel,
further extending the brand’s reach.
This brand integration is advertising that doesn’t feel like
advertising. With so many opportunities for marketers, it’s
difficult to define what advertising is any more. Advertising
that doesn’t feel like advertising works because it’s so well tar-
geted and informative that it becomes a relationship dialogue.
Whether it’s a useful service application effortlessly embedded
into people’s daily lives or content so entertaining that the
brand shares equal footing with television shows, newspapers,
or favorite Web sites, this is true Humankind territory.
Blyk
After focus group comments for a new cell phone service in
the United Kingdom, we were inspired to ask the question,
“What Advertising?” Users of Blyk, which is aimed at 16- to
24-year-olds, receive up to six daily marketing messages, in-
cluding promotions, discount offers, party invites, and interest-
ing content. As the beta program ended, 20% of focus group
participants said they’d had no idea that it was advertising. To
them, advertising is that noisy thing that happens on televi-
sion and on the radio. They saw Blyk more as a friend than
an overt marketing exercise. Blyk was a two-way relationship
offering genuine benefit and value. Perhaps that explains why
the brand hit its annual subscriber target six months early. At a
staggering 29% response rate, there’s no shortage of advertisers
lining up to be part of the program.
Nokia
Nokia is a classic example of putting people at the center
of your thinking. Despite competition from all angles, the
reliability and increasingly sleek design of Nokia’s range has
drawn a quiet but loyal community of fans. Nokia’s commit-
ment to user experience is admirable, but it’s not just about
the handsets. Nokia uses social media, user-generated content,
retail theater, and screen-based technology as an embodiment
of its “connecting people” positioning. For their flagship store
launches worldwide, Nokia created the “Meet Your City”
project, where each store was positioned as a hub for human
connections. Complete with more screens than you can shake

a memory stick at, the shops boasted high-tech, high-spec
environments setting a new benchmark in technology re-
tailing. In London, Nokia collaborated with celebrities like
rapper Dizzee Rascal and photographer Rankin to create an
interactive exhibition that captures intimate portraits of the
city’s residents. These are displayed on screens in-store and
can also be uploaded at meet-your-city.com. The portraits
form a unique, people-focused city map. Each photo is tagged
with interests and themes, and the subject of the picture is
encouraged to introduce friends into the project, thus creat-
ing a viral effect. These images then formed the traditional
press and poster campaign—turning what Leo Burnett would
call “HumanKind Thinking” into practice. Think about it. If
you’re Nokia, and your slogan is “connecting people,” does it
make more sense to spend millions of dollars on a television
campaign announcing to people that you connect them, or do
you actually connect them and make the brand feel more vital
and dynamic and relevant?
Canon
An integrated campaign created by Leo Burnett in Sydney for
Canon cameras took a similar Humankind approach. To estab-
lish Canon’s creative credentials, the team sent photographers
out and about with a camera and a little inspiration (sent via
direct mail). The campaign combined direct mail and post-
ers with a microsite, banners, and a Facebook application to
ensure that photographic results were shareable, motivating
snappers with a little healthy competition. Far from cannibal-
izing traditional media, Canon took a simple yet intriguing
piece of direct marketing and used digital technology and
Internet-sharing capabilities to leverage the campaign beyond
the 2,500 people who received the package.
Prodis
Another project we noticed took involvement to the next level.
It’s the story of an ad that became a film that became a social
CREATIVE AND EFFECTIVE ADVERTISING: BALANCING SPONTANEITY AND DISCIPLINE
David W. Stewart, Yan Cheng, and Heather Wan
Constraints shape and focus problems and provide clear
challenges to overcome. Creativity thrives best when
constrained.
—Marissa Ann Mayer, Vice President for
Search Products and User Experience, Google
(Quoted in Business Week, 2006)
If it doesn’t sell, it’s not creative.
—David Ogilvy, Founder,
Ogilvy & Mather Advertising
Winter 2008 135
outreach project, and ultimately, a media phenomenon. The
Prodis Foundation approached Leo Burnett in Madrid to cre-
ate a 30-second television spot to communicate the fact that
people with Down’s syndrome, if properly educated, can fully
integrate into society. After several weeks of practically living
with the foundation kids, we realized that they were capable
of doing much more than ever imagined. This led us to the
conclusion that the best way to communicate this message was
by letting them create their own commercial. We let them do
everything: They came up with ideas and debated them; they
talked to the production company; they decided on the casting,
locations, costumes, and music; and they insisted on hiring a
celebrity, Carlos Baute. Throughout each step of the process,
we created teaser spots that drove people on-line where they
could find out more about the project. We also created press
ads and radio spots inviting people to the Web. At the end of
the process, we put the commercial on air. The short film is
now being used to inspire people in schools, universities, and
corporations. Of all the results and accolades garnered on the
campaign, the best is that many of the film kids have been
hired by Spanish corporations as a result of this project. How’s
that for humankind?
Summary
Wildfire 2008 demonstrated that the advertising industry
needs to become more comfortable not creating advertising.
Furthermore, it proves that “HumanKind” is a new way of
looking at marketing, in which people come first, front, and
center—not the brand and not the category. Contagious has
been tracking this shift away from the traditional obsession
with branding and advertising as the only means by which to
create brand value. And Leo Burnett clearly operates in the age
of communities, rather than demographic targets. Although
big ads still have a time and a place, they now form a smaller
part of the agency’s responsibilities to clients and consumers.
In short, actions speak louder than words.
In all too many organizations, managers do not balance spon-
taneity with discipline in advertising efforts. Meanwhile, other
important business processes (R&D and logistics, for example)
are carried out through disciplined procedures. Advertising
remains the “Wild West” of business processes, for several rea-
sons. First, many managers and advertising personnel believe
that creativity—what they see as the core of advertising—
should not be constrained. “Let the juices flow unimpeded,”
they say. Second, companies often outsource advertising to
agencies. These third parties often reward their creatives for
136 The Journal of Advertising
the outrageousness of their ideas, not for how well they sell the
client’s offerings. If well managed, outsourcing can bring the
best, specialized creative talent to the development of adver-
tising. When poorly managed, such outsourcing can lead to
a dangerous misalignment in which the client organization
and agency are working toward different goals.
Failure to balance creative spontaneity with discipline has
spawned serious problems for many organizations, including
resources wasted in failed creative processes. There are two
ways creative can fail. First, such advertising or marketing
outcomes (e.g., new products, promotions, sales programs)
result in spectacular failure when implemented in the market.
Ideas are proposed and implemented that, while radically new
and different, do not find interested customers. Patents provide
some especially compelling examples of creativity gone wrong.
An examination of patented product ideas reveals many that
failed. Some of the more amusing, if not downright bizarre,
examples include a dust cover for dogs (1964), a pat-on-the-
back apparatus (1986), and even a motorized ice cream cone
(1999). A second way in which the creative process can go
wrong is through the failure to nurture and develop good
ideas. This type of failure results in companies missing out on
valuable opportunities when original, high-potential ideas are
discarded or neglected. Consider Xerox’s Palo Alto Research
Center (PARC). In its earlier years, PARC developed the PC,
graphical user interface, the mouse, Ethernet, laser printing,
WYSIWYG graphics, and object-oriented programming. The
organization never established business units to bring these
excellent ideas to market, however. Other companies seized the
opportunities associated with these ideas and put the business
disciplines and processes in place to commercialize PARC’s
ideas. These rival firms ultimately profited handsomely from
PARC’s hard work.
Discipline in the creative process is required to both elimi-
nate poor and ineffective ideas as early as possible and to assure
that good ideas receive the support and resources required to
fully develop and implement them. Proper discipline guides
creative channels toward relevant and effective ends, thus pre-
venting them from being dispersed in a flood of ideas that are
neither effective nor consistent with the goals of the advertiser.
Fresh, creative thinking can be important and powerful but
it is not enough to build successful businesses—or to develop
effective advertising campaigns. Creative thinking must be
managed. This means developing a rigorous approach not only
for eliminating bad ideas, but also for nurturing good ones.
And it means balancing the spontaneity that characterizes in-
novative thinking with the constraint and discipline required
to turn promising ideas into powerful advertisements.
Managing the creative process does not diminish the im-
portance of the “Eureka!” moment that many people associate
with innovative thinking. Rather, it creates a structure like
a riverbank to enable creative ideas, like water, to flow with
focus and vigor. True, a disciplined creative process reduces
creatives’ ability to do what some may think of as art for art’s
sake. Nevertheless, we agree with the late advertising giant
David Ogilvy that pure art is not what advertising is, nor what
it should be. Creativity for the sake of creativity does not work.
Advertising is effective only if it meets an important business
need—such as selling the corresponding product or service,
or strengthening a company’s brand equity.
The Role of Learning
A critical element in developing effective and creative advertis-
ing is building on what is already known about what makes
advertising effective. Creativity is not about throwing away
everything and starting from a blank page. Disciplined cre-
ativity begins with clear problem definition and the assembly
of relevant information; it rests on what is known about what
makes advertising effective. There is a substantial body of
academic and practitioner literature that provides information
about what does and does not work, in most cases. Client his-
tory on advertised products also accumulates an understanding
of what has and has not worked well in the past. This body
of wisdom and learning—really cumulative learning about
advertising and how it works—can also serve to guide and
direct the creative process.
For example, it is generally recognized in the advertising
literature that a focus on the advertised product makes an
advertisement more effective on a variety of measures—recall,
comprehension, attitude change, persuasion—than making
the product a bit player (Stewart and Furse 1986; Stewart and
Koslow 1989). Creating an advertisement that focuses on the
product would seem an intuitively obvious task, but oddly this
task is often lost in the creative process. There are unambigu-
ous theoretical and empirical foundations on which to build
effective creative advertising. Ogilvy (1985) makes it clear
that received wisdom in the enlightened creative community
is consistent with empirical research. Discipline matters.
Five Steps to Balancing Spontaneity
with Discipline in Advertising
More than 80 years ago, Graham Wallas (1926), in his classic
book, The Art of Thought, identified the necessary steps in the
creative process: (1) preparation (investigating the problem),
(2) incubation (laying the problem aside for some time and
eschewing conscious dwelling on it), (3) illumination (allowing
new ideas to emerge), and (4) verification (testing, refining,
and finalizing ideas generated during illumination).
This four-step model continues to see wide use in aca-
demia, although many researchers add a stage or separate one
of Wallas’s stages into several distinct steps. For example,
Rossman (1931) suggested eight steps in the creative process:

observe a need or difficulty, analyze the need, survey available
information, formulate objective solutions, analyze solutions’
advantages and disadvantages, invent new ideas, test ideas
through experimentation, and select and refine final incarna-
tion. Similarly, Alex Osborn (1953) proposed seven steps:
orientation (defining the problem), preparation (gathering
pertinent data), analysis (breaking down relevant material),
ideation (compiling alternatives), incubation (setting the
problem aside temporarily, to invite illumination), synthesis
(putting various ideas and information together), and evalua-
tion (judging the resulting ideas). We would add a fifth stage—
implementation—because there is creativity in production and
in execution. Undisciplined creativity during implementation
can undo even the most effective creative strategies.
Only one of these five steps involves the “Eureka!” moment.
The other stages involve disciplined preparation, thought,
testing, and execution. Even the “Eureka!” moment itself is
more useful when informed by a disciplined process. Learn-
ing should be an important element in the creative process.
Knowing what has, and what has not worked in the past, can
make the creative process more effective and efficient. The
identification of “creative” ideas that radically depart from past
proven successes provides diagnostic information and guides
additional idea testing.
We will next identify five steps in the creative process and
discuss the role of direction and discipline in each. We will
then examine extant research on the effectiveness of television
advertising to illustrate how such research—really learning
from experience—can guide the creation of more effective
advertising.
1. Identify the problem. The first step in the creative process
involves establishing direction. Even in the world of pure art
there is a need for direction. An artist must decide whether to
paint, draw, or sculpt. Having decided to paint, the question
becomes oil, watercolor, or chalk? Even after establishing a
medium, there is the question of what to capture: landscape,
still life, portrait, or something else? The artist engaged in
art for arts’ sake has a great deal of discretion with respect to
decisions, but the artist offering services to a paying client will
immediately find constraints. The client who wants a color
portrait in oil is unlikely to be satisfied with even a highly
creative black and white photograph.
This step of defining the focus of the creative process,
which Wallas (1926) called preparation, involves identifying
the problem and the purpose of the creative product. It also
involves placing constraints around the creative process. If
a firm is selling automobiles, preparation involves problem
identification and a focus on advertising designed to sell cars.
Rocks and trees may be beautiful (as was the case for Nissan’s
Infiniti brand), but when there is virtually no mention of
automobiles in such a commercial, there is a good chance the
Winter 2008 137
spot will not communicate anything about automobiles and
it will certainly not help sell cars.
2. Think deliberately—and incubate if necessary. This step blends
deliberation with incubation, the second stage in Wallas’s
model. Through deliberative thinking, a creative team digests
all the information it has gathered, consciously reflects on the
assignment at hand, and brainstorms possible solutions. Team
members can encounter numerous obstacles while thinking
deliberatively, however. For example, due to multiple projects
or distractions from other areas of their lives, they may fall
victim to mental fatigue; they may hit a mental block and be
unable to envision an advertisement that differs radically from
those created in the past; or they may become enamored with
an exciting and novel idea that has nothing to do with the
advertiser objectives. Indeed, such mental blocks or premature
narrowing of ideas is one reason discipline is required in the
creative process. Part of this discipline involves nurturing
creativity and providing sufficient time for truly novel and
powerful ideas to emerge.
Experts (Campbell 1960; Cofer and Gelfand 1956; Judson,
Cofer, and Gelfand 1956; Maier 1931; Silveira 1971; Smith
and Blankenship 1991; Ward and Saunders 2003; Yaniv and
Mayer 1987) have proposed a range of reasons why incubation
can improve the creative process. For instance, Yaniv and Meyer
(1987) maintain that during incubation, people continue
thinking about the problem at hand, though unconsciously.
During this period, people combine bits of knowledge from
their own memories and information from external sources in
new ways, which produces new ways to the think about the
problem. According to Silveira (1971), incubation also pro-
vides time to recover from the mental fatigue that can build up
when exerting intense effort to solve a problem. With cogni-
tive energy replenished, an individual can return to the task at
hand and dig in with renewed vigor. This is a strong argument
for outsourcing the creative process. The typical marketing
manager is too busy fighting fires, meeting immediate financial
objectives, and dealing with internal organizational processes
to have the time necessary for the incubation period. On the
other hand, advertisers need to recognize that part of what
they pay agencies for is this period of unobstructed incubation
time. Of course, incubation takes time—a scarce resource in
the world of business. Thus, creative teams may need to put
boundaries around it.
3. Illuminate. When well managed, nurtured, and disciplined,
the process of deliberative thinking and incubation produces
new ideas—often seemingly in a flash of insight that lies en-
tirely outside the control of an individual creative contributor
or creative team. This is the “Eureka Experience.” However,
ideas generated in the illumination stage are a culmination
of the two previous stages in the creative process, if, and only
138 The Journal of Advertising
if, these stages have occurred. The discipline of the former
stages creates a higher probability of a successful experience
at the “Eureka” stage. A fundamental issue at this stage is the
fit of the “creative solution” with the problem that initially
prompted a need for the creative process. Illumination is not
the end of the creative process in advertising—even if it feels
like it is.
4. Evaluate and verify. During this step (which Wallas called
verification), the creative team assesses the ideas developed
and determines how well they meet the client’s requirements
and expectations. For example, would production of the most
interesting storyboard fall within budget? Can the proposed
ad be produced on the schedule stipulated by the company?
Will it emphasize the features outlined in the advertising brief?
If the proposed ad does not meet such requirements but runs
anyway, the company risks wasting a considerable investment
in campaign development and even greater media weight
expenses. Copy testing or preliminary testing of consumers’
responses to a creative product can screen out ideas that stand
little chance of succeeding. It can also provide feedback to help
improve ideas that are basically sound but that contain flaws.
When multiple ideas are generated, testing can inform which
ideas should receive greater and which should receive lesser
support. For example, an advertisement that is demonstrated
in testing to be very powerful in persuading consumers might
receive greater media weight than one that has more modest
outcomes.
This idea of differential media investment in ideas has an
analog in the motion picture business—also a very creative
enterprise. It is often difficult to predict how appealing a film
will be based on a script. Only once a film is completed can
it be tested. Top films progress to broad theatrical releases;
some have a limited theatrical release and then they go off to
rentals and DVD sales, while others go straight to DVD sales.
These creative products are not simply accepted or rejected.
Rather, a specific decision is made about how much to invest
in developing and promoting the idea. The same is true for
advertising. Much of what is created is good, but perhaps not
good enough for large investments in media weight.
5. Implement. We add implementation to Wallas’s model, be-
cause the most brilliantly conceived advertisement would have
little or no value if the version that is ultimately produced were
not true to the thinking that went into the ad. For instance,
suppose the film techniques used by the production team fail
to match the desired look and feel of those images as conceived
by the creative team and praised by the test participants. In
this case, the ad, once produced and aired, may leave viewers
cold—and the client fuming.
Executing an advertising campaign may seem mundane
compared to the excitement of developing creative new
ideas, but it is essential for ensuring the achievement of the
objectives of the creative process. To boost the chances that
the final, production version of advertisement will deliver
as promised, the creative team and client’s managers need
to review and approve every aspect of pre- and postproduc-
tion. An otherwise good idea that tests well can be hijacked
in the production process, often because a producer or artist
takes “creative license” at the shoot. Part of the discipline of
the creative process is assuring that the creative process stays
true to objectives of that process all the way to the finished
product. This five-step process itself provides a form of disci-
pline for guiding the creative force during development of an
advertisement. Every step involves creativity, but an especially
important element in success is coordination of the creative
process as it is handed off at each stage.
Interaction and Iteration: Two Crucial Ingredients
The process described above for balancing spontaneity and
discipline in advertising requires a complex set of interactions
among numerous parties. This process is iterative, meaning
that the creative team may need to revisit one or more of the
steps multiple times before crafting the most effective solu-
tion. In Meeting of the Minds (1995), Vince Barabba observes
that all too often decision makers are insufficiently engaged in
the decision-making process. He notes that there is a tendency
for managers to hand off an ill-defined problem to a decision
team or creative team with the expectation that the team will
develop the solution. Seldom engaged in the development
of the solution itself, such managers frequently confront the
team’s solution with a requirement that they prove it works.
This is an all too frequent description of the creative process
in advertising. “Creation” is handed off to the creative depart-
ment, whose ideas are then subject to testing and critique.
This process has the effect of compartmentalizing the stages
in the creative process described above. One team handles the
identification of the problem, another team handles the delib-
erative thinking, yet another team is responsible for the Eureka
moment, and still another team is responsible for implementa-
tion. Such an organizational structure virtually assures a poor
outcome. Creating an effective advertisement is best handled
collaboratively with frequent dialogue among the participants
throughout the creative process if the client company hopes
to see handsome returns on its investment. Individuals from a
wide array of parties—including the creative team, ad agency,
client organization, production team, and customers—must
interact frequently during the five steps described earlier.
The five-step process for balancing spontaneity with
discipline does not necessarily unfold in a lockstep, linear
manner. In some cases, it may do so, but with most advertis-
ing projects, the process will be iterative. That is, the many
different teams involved in developing the advertisement will

need to circle back to earlier steps to create the most effec-
tive outcome possible for the client. Indeed, a key reason for
collaboration and dialogue throughout the process is to avoid
moving too far toward commitment to an idea before it has
been appropriately informed and effectively vetted. Such col-
laboration and dialogue may also provide nurturance for an
unpopular, but potentially effective idea by a champion who
might not otherwise have the opportunity to influence the
creative process.
An Example of Prior Learning Informing Creativity
Television advertising, with its multiple modalities, still
counts among the most powerful media for getting the mes-
sage out about an organization’s product, service, or brand.
But television advertising is also notably expensive to develop
and produce. It provides enormous opportunities for creativ-
ity that can either be directed and on target, or rather off
target and removed from the objectives of the firm. For these
reasons, it is worth taking a look at what makes television
advertising effective. An enormous body of research among
academic scholars and advertising practitioners has produced
results that are remarkably consistent with respect to what
does and does not work in television advertising. This body
of research is also remarkably consistent with the “received
wisdom” among senior creative directors. For example, Stewart
and Furse (1986) and Stewart and Koslow (1989) examined
the relationship between more than 160 advertising content
items and several measures of advertising effects, including
recall, comprehension, and persuasion. In this research, which
has been replicated with over 2,000 television commercials,
several factors have been shown as predictors of advertis-
ing success, on virtually all measures: brand differentiation
messages articulating the difference between the advertised
offering and competitors’ offerings; superiority claims; news
or attention to the newness of a product, brand, or service;
attention to newness or improvement of a product or service
feature; product focus or time devoted to offering or brand;
emphasis on offering’s benefits (results of use by consumer)
DEFINING THE NECESSARY COMPONENTS OF CREATIVE, EFFECTIVE ADS
John R. Rossiter
It is a truism that creativity is the “heart” of advertising.
Its ramifications are seen in all aspects of advertising man-
agement: in brand positioning, media planning, and, of
course, in the creative output itself—the advertising. Both
clients and ad agencies seek advertising that is creative and
effective. There is considerable disagreement and lack of
deep thought, however, about what components of an ad make
Winter 2008 139
or its convenience. Likewise, certain elements detract from a
commercial’s effectiveness, such as creative clutter, including
singing and dancing and an irrelevant background cast.
One way to interpret such results is that they suggest a for-
mulaic approach to advertising. After all, demanding a product
focus (to the exclusion of irrelevant creative cluster)—that is,
requiring something newsworthy and giving consumers a basis
for selecting the advertised product—imposes constraints on
the creative. Note, however, that these “rules” tend to channel
creativity rather than constrain it. While they may suggest that
an advertising message should articulate differences between
the client’s product and rival companies’ offerings, the rules
do not dictate message content. Demanding a feature on the
advertised product rather than irrelevant entertainment serves
to focus commercial objective(s). Rather than constraining
creativity, rules establish useful, broad boundaries that help
balance creativity with needed discipline. When these “rules”
are based on accumulated learning and empirical research,
they make the creative process more efficient and increase the
likelihood of success.
Summary and Conclusions
For many managers as well as creative-team personnel, the
notion of creativity in advertising will always evoke images of
unfettered forces engendering breakthrough, award-winning
commercials. But letting creativity run amok—presumably
in the service of art—misses a key point about advertising: It
is not worth doing unless it sells something.
To ensure that a commercial fulfills this purpose, compa-
nies must balance the spontaneity of the creative force with
discipline. The five-step process proposed in this paper helps
provide that discipline—channeling the creative flow of fresh
ideas toward productive and profitable ends. In the words of
Rollo May (1975):
Creativity arises out of the tension between spontaneity and
limitations, the latter (like the river banks) forcing the spon-
taneity into the various forms which are essential to the work
of art or poem.
it both creative and effective. John Rossiter’s approach to
dealing with creativity and advertising is presented in this
paper. Portions of this argument are presented, published,
and cited elsewhere (Rossiter 1994; Rossiter and Bellman
2005; Rossiter and Percy 1987, 1997), but the full contri-
bution and discussion is presented here in the special issue,
true to form!
140 The Journal of Advertising
There are two necessary “deep structure” components in an
ad—the key benefit claim and the creative idea. These components
are defined and exemplified, and then integrated into a model
of “how ads work,” by being both creative and effective, called
the Remote Conveyor Model.
The Key Benefit Claim
The starting point of any ad is the key benefit claim, since it is
the most important ingredient in the creative brief that the
agency works from. The key benefit claim is variously called
the “consumer insight” (e.g., Wing 2008), the “brand essence”
(e.g., Roberts 2008), or the “proposition” (e.g., Murphy 2008).
We define the key benefit claim as a unique statement of the
key benefit. In very brief ads, such as “mobile” outdoor ads,
classified ads, and SMS ads, the key benefit claim may also
be the end point of the ad in the form of a slogan or tag line.
However, in most ads, as we shall see, there is a key benefit
claim—itself a creative production—and a separate creative
idea. We focus first on the key benefit claim; subsequently,
the creative idea is defined and exemplified.
Academic researchers and most advertising researchers have
failed to understand the crucial difference between a benefit
and a benefit claim, but copywriting depends on this difference.
Most advertising message strategies are decided on the basis
of some sort of explicit or implicit “multiattribute” analysis
of competing brands in the category, such as the I-D-U (Im-
portance, Delivery, Uniqueness) model or other similar models
(Clancy and Krieg 2000). However, these models operate at
the level of benefits, not benefit claims, and therefore fall short
of representing how ads actually work. Take almost any po-
sitioning statement in a client’s creative brief or in an ad-test
questionnaire and you will see that the content is a benefit,
or benefits, not benefit claims. For example, the manager of
a new brand of toothpaste may decide, on the basis of some
form of multiattribute analysis, that there is an opportunity
for unique benefit positioning on the “composite” benefit of
offering all major care functions for teeth and gums—cavity
prevention, plaque removal, and whitening being the most
important of these. Several brands of toothpaste already offer
the composite benefit (see the remarkably long list of claims
on most toothpaste packages). Therefore, a unique statement of
the key benefit will be required to sell the new brand over
others.
The key benefit claim, rather than the benefit as such, is the
crux of the ad. Mayer (1958) recognized this, but since then,
the insight has been lost, certainly in the academic advertising
literature. In the sexist language of the time, Mayer wrote:
“in most fields where advertising is heavy everybody is mak-
ing pretty much the same pitch, and it is the creative man’s
ability to present the claim most effectively which pulls his
client into the lead” (1958, p. 133). Claims are also central in
other forms of marketing communications, such as publicity
and even in normally mundane price promotions.
Possibly the only advertising researcher since the days of
split-run mail-order ad testing to fully appreciate the crucial
distinction between a benefit and various claims about that
benefit is Howard Moskowitz (see Moskowitz’s company Web
site, IdeaMap.net). In his version of multiattribute analysis,
Moskowitz correctly operates at the very specific and refined
level of benefit claims; in pretests, he presents consumers with
numerous (sometimes 100 or so) actual and potential verbal
claims and visually demonstrated claims. Moskowitz convinc-
ingly shows that an effective benefit claim for a benefit of
relatively modest importance in a conventional multiattribute
analysis can far outperform an ineffective claim for even the
most important benefit (to do this, he regresses consumer’s
rated buying intention on consumers’ ratings of the appeal
of each of the benefit claims). Proving an old suspicion, how-
ever, Moskowitz finds that a certain benefit claim may “fit” a
particular brand but is not regarded by consumers as fitting
other brands; in other words, the brand now “owns” a unique
benefit claim.
The key benefit claim, of course, focuses on the benefit
thought by the copywriter to be the key to selling the adver-
tised product. This is undoubtedly what agency creatives mean
when they rate ads as “appropriate” or “on-strategy” (Koslow,
Sasser, and Riordan 2003). Copywriters have variously referred
to the key benefit claim as the “campaign theme,” the “copy
platform,” or as the famous copywriter Rosser Reeves called
it, the “unique selling proposition,” or “USP” (Mayer 1958,
p. 130). Reeves’s USPs were always explicit—forming the
headline in the brand’s ads—but we will see shortly that the
key benefit claim need not be explicit, as they generally aren’t
in modern, transformational ads. Regardless of whether it is
explicit or implicit, the three rules for writing an effective USP
outlined by Reeves (quoted in Mayer 1958, p. 60) apply also to
the key benefit claim: (1) it must be a proposition—a proposal
or implied promise to the customer; (2) it must be unique—a
claim that the competing brands cannot offer or do not offer,
the latter relying on preemption; and (3) it must sell—that
is, it must represent what the customer perceives to be an
important benefit or “driver” (which may be informational or
transformational) of purchase intention.
The key benefit claim may or may not be stated or shown in
the ad. Often it will be explicit in the form of a slogan or tag
line. A good example of a key benefit claim that is explicit is
Heineken’s tag line, “It’s all about the beer.” However, other
ads go straight to the creative idea and do not state the key benefit
claim anywhere (even though the key benefit claim was in the
creative brief—to generate the creative idea in the first place).
One of the most obvious examples is what was probably the
first “open” or “postmodern” ad campaign, which was the series
of ads designed to grab attention by using shocking pictures,

TABLE 1
Examples of Great Creative Ideas Generated from Key Benefit Claims
Brand Key benefit claim
7UP lemon soda “The uncola”
(explicit)
Dial soap “All soaps clean but this
one deodorizes”
(implicit)
VW Beetle automobile “This is an honest car”
(implicit)
Miller Lite beer “Macho; full taste; fewer calories”
(implicit)
Clairol women’s “So subtle, friends can’t confidently
hair dye decide if you’ve used it”
(implicit)
Nescafé Gold Blend “Part of your life” (implicit)
instant coffee (U.K.)
launched by clothing manufacturer and retailer Benetton.
Table 1 gives some examples of explicit and implicit key benefit
claims from famous campaigns.
If the client hasn’t provided a key benefit claim in the
creative brief, assuming there is a creative brief, which sur-
prisingly often there isn’t, then the creative team has to come
up with the key benefit claim. Interviews with advertising
agency personnel suggest that it is best to let the agency’s
creative team generate the key benefit claim—in other words,
the “strategy”—because a client-imposed strategy invades
what the agency sees as its exclusive province and can inhibit
the creative effort from the start (Koslow, Sasser, and Riordan
2006). The creative team cannot begin “brainstorming” the
creative idea for the campaign until it has the key benefit
claim, because the key benefit claim is what they brainstorm
from, and about, to derive the creative idea.
The Creative Idea
The other creativity-related deep-structure component in an ad
is the creative idea. There is general agreement that successful
ads are built around a great creative idea, also known as the
“big idea” or simply the “idea” (see especially Mayer 1958
and O’Toole 1985). But what is a creative idea conceptually?
What is the purpose of a creative idea? How is the creative
idea supposed to work? Should all ads use a creative idea? The
creative idea can be partially defined as “a way of dramatiz-
ing the key benefit claim.” Because of its dramatic content,
the creative idea will automatically be attention-getting—a
requirement for any ad. The creative idea is usually a visual
device used in television commercials and print ads, such as a
Winter 2008 141
Creative idea
White (7UP) and black (cola) cartoon characters shown to
be different.
Body-odor scenarios accompanied by the tag line “Aren’t you
glad you used Dial? Don’t you wish everybody did?”
Print ads with headlines such as “Ugly,” “Lemon.”
“Ex-jock” football players arguing whether “great taste” or
“less calories” is the reason for drinking Lite.
“After” photos of women who’ve used Clairol, with the
curiosity headline “Does she or doesn’t she?” and sometimes
with the tag line “Only her hairdresser knows for sure.”
Ten-episode “soap opera” series of television commercials,
each with a character left in a dilemma at the end, musing
while drinking the brand as a “product placement.”
dramatic demonstration of the product’s benefit or a visually
told story or striking picture that dramatizes the key benefit
via a deliberately indirect route (see the Remote Conveyor
Model, following). In radio commercials, however, the creative
idea has to be executed verbally (or paraverbally, or by sound
effects). Often the creative idea is verbal in visual media, too,
as in a “curiosity” headline in a print ad where the creative
idea is to raise curiosity about the benefit and answer it in the
copy. The creative idea may be executed verbally and musically
in television and radio commercials (in a jingle that draws
attention to the key benefit).
Very short ads rarely have the space or time to include a
creative idea. In these cases, the key benefit claim must be used
explicitly in the ad. The key benefit claim plays the role of the
creative idea by dramatizing the key benefit—in most cases
verbally (a slogan or tag line), but in some cases with a quick
picture (the visual logos of some brands are cleverly designed
to dramatize the key benefit of the product or service, such as
the “rabbit” logo for Rabbit Photo Service, or the distinctive
“flying kangaroo” of Qantas, the Australian airline, which
says, “fly Australian”). In such cases, the key benefit claim
and the creative idea coalesce into a single, deep-structure
component of the ad.
Faced with creating a longer ad, such as a standard
30-second television commercial or full-page magazine ad,
or in more recent times, a Web site, the copywriter cannot
get away with just the key benefit claim. In 99% of cases, the
copywriter needs something to “fill” the time or space, and
this will invariably be a way of dramatizing the key benefit
claim—in other words, a creative idea. It is the creative idea
that is most influential for winning creative awards. The
142 The Journal of Advertising
creative idea is an abstraction in that it is the copywriter’s
plan, a personally devised strategy really, to answer the blunt
question: “How’re ya gonna persuade ‘em?” The creative idea
should not be confused with the overall execution, which com-
prises the surface characteristics of the ad that make the creative
idea—a deep-structure concept as noted earlier—manifest.
The creative idea must be amenable to multiple executions,
or the copywriter will not have a campaign to present to the
client. A complete definition of the creative idea is: (1) an
attention-getting way of dramatizing the brand’s key benefit,
(2) stated in complete enough detail so that it can be executed,
in (3) multiple executions.
The best way to explain the complex concept of a creative
idea is by giving examples. These examples are also shown in
Table 1. Based on a review of great creative ideas in advertis-
ing in Western countries, all of which resulted in massive
sales gains for the advertised brand, we have inferred the key
benefit claim from which the creative idea was generated,
although two of them we know to be the key benefit claim
that was in fact used by the copywriter. The descriptions of the
creative ideas also had to be inferred. They are, of course, our
interpretations, which we hope do justice to the copywriters’
actual creative ideas.
Purposes of the Creative Idea
Logically, the first thing to do to find out the purposes of the
creative idea would be to ask copywriters what they are trying
to achieve with it. In a landmark study, the experienced adver-
tising practitioner and academic Art Kover, who at the time
was editor of the Journal of Advertising Research, did just that
(Kover 1995). He summarized the copywriters’ stated purposes
of the creative idea as “(1) breaking through to attract interest,
and (2) delivering a message” (p. 599). In a similar open-ended
interview study, Fourquet-Courbet, Courbet, and Vanhuele
(2007) found that the creators of very brief ads—designers of
Web banner ads—articulated the same two purposes. These
two purposes should be elaborated in more properly scientific
terms, however.
The first, “breaking through to attract interest,” refers to
achieving the attention step in ad processing. Gaining attention
is the single largest problem in contemporary advertising (and
in all other forms of contemporary marketing communica-
tions). Attention probabilities for ads in various media can be
estimated (see Rossiter and Bellman 2005), and in most cases,
they reveal sharp declines in recent years. However, attention
to the ad is an incomplete account of this first purpose of the
creative idea because it is of no use unless the attention in-
cludes attention to the advertised brand. What must eventuate
is the more lasting communication effect, beyond temporary
processing responses, of brand awareness. The first purpose of
the creative idea, therefore, is to increase brand awareness by
increasing the number of people in the ads’ audience who pay
attention to the ad. To be more specific, brand awareness can
consist of either brand recognition or brand recall, depend-
ing on how the brand is typically chosen within the product
category.
The second purpose of the creative idea identified by Kover
(1995), “delivering a message,” must also be anchored to a
more permanent brand communication effect. In this case,
the critical brand communication effect is brand attitude. That
is, the “delivered message” must be manifest in an increase
in the consumers’ overall evaluation of the branded product,
or maintenance of an already highly favorable evaluation if
the branded product is established and the target audience is
brand loyals. It is possible to push even harder at the brand at-
titude purpose of the creative idea by arguing that the ad must
increase (or maintain) brand preference, which is relative brand
attitude. For brand preference, the resulting brand attitude
toward the client’s brand held by as many target prospects as
possible (the more the better) must be higher, even margin-
ally, than the brand attitudes held by them toward closely
competing brands.
Advertising executions—incorporating the creative idea
and stating or implying the key benefit claim—should be
pretested for their ability to gain attention and achieve the
critical communication effects of brand awareness and brand
preference.
How the Creative Idea Works
The creative idea might work through a rather simple and
superficial path whereby the advertiser (the brand owner) is
perceived by consumers as sophisticated or trendy. This is
the path assumed in “postmodern” ads (see Proctor, Proctor,
and Papasolomou-Doukakis 2002), such as the “crossword
clues” creative idea used by Benson & Hedges cigarettes in
the United Kingdom following the ban on showing people in
ads. A similar superficial path is a likable ad, which involves
a humorous creative idea, or the creative idea of engaging a
very likable presenter such as Bill Cosby for Jell-O or televi-
sion cartoon characters for children’s products. In such cases,
the hope is that a favorable attitude toward the ad (Aad) will
transfer to the brand. However, the Aad path, and especially
the ad liking (Lad) path, are only likely to be effective if the
advertised product is a low-risk purchase and if liking it more
is a sufficient reason to buy it instead of other brands (Spotts,
Weinberger, and Parsons 1997).
In the great majority of ads, however, the creative idea has to
work by a strictly cognitive route of “conveying,” dramatically
and effectively, the key benefit claim. One can operationalize
the conveying process in the only comprehensive model of
creativity in ads to appear in the advertising literature. This
model was originally called the remote-associative-matching

conveyor model, or the RAM Conveyor Model (see Ang 1995;
Rossiter 1994), but now it is called by a shorter name, the Re-
mote Conveyor Model (see Figure 1). According to the model,
the creative idea works by (1) drawing greater attention to the
ad, that is, by more people seeing or hearing it; (2) raising
curiosity about the “remote” relationship between the conveyor
and the advertised product; (3) which causes a search of the ad’s
content to resolve the curiosity; and (4) resolution, which means
that the consumer realizes that the key benefit is association in
common—hence, “matching”—of the conveyor and the adver-
tised product. This indirect processing route is hypothesized
to be more “involving” as it “stamps in” the brand–benefit as-
sociation more effectively than using just a “straight” ad (just
brand and benefit, directly linked with no conveyor). Again,
we contend that this is the first and only functional theoretical
model of how creativity “works” in advertising.
A major contribution of the Remote Conveyor Model is
the identification of the properties of an effective conveyor. An
effective conveyor must be (1) attention-getting, (2) correctly
labeled by the audience, (3) perceived as remote from the
product, (4) key-benefit eliciting, and (5) free of conflicting
associations. To be effective, the conveyor has to pass all five
tests (the five properties are conjointly necessary).
Necessary for All Ads?
In formulating the Remote Conveyor Model of how creative
ideas work, we tried to think of exceptions or “boundary condi-
tions” for which a creative idea would not be necessary. There
are four such advertising situations: long-copy, heavily “infor-
mational,” and technical ads aimed at an already interested
target audience; “serious” classified ads, such as when selling
a house; food ads; and very brief ads, as in mobile outdoor ads,
Web banners, and SMS ads. However, we concluded that even
these forms of ads benefit from the inclusion of a creative idea,
as explained below.
Pharmaceutical ads (now one of the largest categories of
advertising in the United States and other major developed
countries) are a good example of long-copy, heavily infor-
mational ads aimed at interested sufferers—and implicitly
at potential sufferers, as hypochondriacs are rife in Western
societies. It may not be thought that these types of ads should
waste concerned viewers’ or readers’ time by being “creative.”
Nevertheless, the pharmaceutical category is commoditized
(through generic drugs) just like most others, and so it is
commercially wise, if ethically debatable, for a pharmaceutical
brand to try to dramatize its key benefit, and to do so differ-
ently from the way competing brands might. We believe the
same applies in cases of other heavily informational ads aimed
at interested consumers.
Classified ads are increasingly going to on-line newspa-
pers, but they still comprise a very large lucrative category of
Winter 2008 143
FIGURE 1
Remote Conveyor Model
conventional newspaper advertising. This might be another
situation where “creativity” does not seem necessary. However,
even for the most serious of these—death notices—it seems
difficult for most relatives to resist a little creative elaboration,
albeit still respecting the deceased. Birth notices, too, seem
to have become more creatively enthusiastic, perhaps because
births, per couple, are a rarer event these days. And even when
selling a house or a car, the two perennial high-ticket classified
ad products, it is almost impossible to avoid some hyperbole
or emotive description (a benefit claim) because otherwise
one might have difficulty getting readers interested enough
to make an inquiry.
Food advertising presents an interesting case. Traditionally,
in television commercials and magazine ads, food advertising
has been dominated by the “beauty shot” of the food itself.
Exceptions include foods marketed on their alleged health
benefits, which are also often creatively exaggerated. Beauty
shots are thought to be crucial for the effectiveness of food
product ads and this is the only category for which the U.S.
Federal Trade Commission allows deception (whipped potato
for ice cream, red-painted lobster shells, etc.). Such beauty
shots, deceptive or not, are “ways of dramatizing the key
benefit” and are thus “creative.”
The last potential bounding case for creativity is very brief
ads. Mobile outdoor ads, Web banners, and SMS text ads do
not have room to include an elaborate creative idea. As a recent
study by Fourquet-Courbet, Courbet, and Vanhuele (2007)
demonstrates, however, based on interviews with Web banner
designers, writers of brief ads certainly try to be creative in the
short available space, and they do this by trying to devise “a
unique statement of the key benefit” (our emphasis). This, in our
terminology, is a key benefit claim, and thus an opportunity to
be creative. Overall, therefore, it seems safest to assume that
creativity is helpful for all ads. It is certainly more than helpful
by being the “big difference” for many.
144 The Journal of Advertising
In conclusion, we reiterate that advertising has lacked a
reasonable theory about its most distinctive characteristic: cre-
ativity. Creativity has long been theorized about in psychology
and education (for a review, see articles in the Journal of Creative
Behavior), and to some extent in management (Kabanoff and
Rossiter 1994). But it has very rarely been theorized in its widest
application—advertising. Judging by what we’ve read of creativ-
ity in other fields, creativity operates in the most complex manner
THE CONCEPT OF “IMAGINATIVE INTENSITY” IN ADVERTISING
Sunil Erevelles, Robert Roundtree, George M. Zinkhan, and Nobuyuki Fukawa
Volatility and transience dominate the advertising environ-
ment. Traditional advertising models rapidly become obsolete
in an environment where media and audience fragmentation
is occurring at a rapid pace. Advertisers and their agencies
(hereafter collectively referred to as advertisers) are likely to
create value in the future only if they succeed in constantly
reinventing their practices. More specifically, an approach
to “strategic creativity” in advertising requires a framework
for the continuous transformation of both advertising mes-
sages and models. The transformation theory of creativity
(see Mellou 1996) suggests that creativity is the outcome of
transformational activity that entails changing what currently
exists. Imagination, which we define as the “formation of new
mental images” (adapted from Warnock 1983), initiates trans-
formational activity, and is the basis for innovation. Thus, a
strategic framework for creativity is one that would enhance
the probability of continuous transformation.
This paper is an initial foray into the realm of “strategic
creativity” in advertising. We present an initial framework (see
Figure 1) for strategically harnessing imagination and managing
transformation. Also, we argue that value creation by advertisers
can no longer be achieved solely through “skill-based applica-
tion capabilities.” Rather, we suggest that “imagination-based
transformation capabilities” are essential. To help advertisers
achieve such capabilities, we introduce and define the concept of
“imaginative intensity,” an indicator of an advertiser’s capacity
for new idea generation and utilization. The objectives of this
paper are: (1) to introduce the concept of “imaginative intensity”
in advertising and to specify its relevance for continuous trans-
formation; (2) to discuss cocreation in advertising to facilitate
imaginative intensity; and (3) to provide an initial framework
for harnessing marketplace imagination.
The Concept of “Imaginative Intensity”
in Advertising
Knowledge today is rapidly created, disseminated, commod-
itized, and made obsolete. Knowledge, and consequently skills,
of all in ads. Figuring out how it operates has been left in the “too
hard basket” by academics, or has been regarded as essentially
the province of copywriters’ “magic,” into which science should
never intrude. We have proposed a theory of creativity in ads
that identifies as creative the key benefit claim and the creative
idea; offers a plausible model of how the creative idea works;
and provides a useful checklist for screening conveyors, the most
popular form of creative ideas used by copywriters in ads.
in and of themselves, can therefore no longer be a sustainable
source of value creation or a competitive advantage for any
appreciable period of time (see Erevelles, Horton, and Fukawa
2007). Continuous transformation is thus essential to create
new value and to maintain a moving competitive advantage in
the marketplace. Continuous transformation is possible only if
an advertiser has the ability to effectively harness imagination
and to continuously convert it into ideas that can achieve a
marketplace advantage. Unfortunately, most change in ad-
vertising strategy usually occurs when market circumstances
compel its occurrence. Often, such change is motivated by
a crisis and is reactionary (Hamel 2002). Whereas proactive
change is opportunity-driven, reactive change is normally
crisis-driven and therefore often results in opportunities being
missed (Hamel 2002).
The focus of this paper is opportunity-driven, continuous
transformation of advertising practices. Effective continuous
transformation is possible only if an effective framework ex-
ists for harnessing and utilizing as many ideas available in the
marketplace as possible. To help achieve this, we introduce
the concept of “imaginative intensity,” which is defined as
“the capacity of an advertiser to continuously generate trans-
formational ideas and utilize them to achieve a marketplace
advantage.” The transformational theory of creativity (Mellou
1996) considers creativity to be the outcome of transforma-
tional activity. Imagination, the “inventive or creative faculty”
(Lytton 1971) of human beings, is necessary for transforma-
tional activity and is a predecessor of creativity (Arieti 1976).
“Imaginative intensity” thus involves the harnessing of mar-
ketplace imagination for transformational activity that could
result in creative advertising strategy to achieve a marketplace
advantage.
“Imaginative intensity” is important to avoid the danger of
“strategy convergence” in the advertising industry. In adver-
tising, strategy convergence refers to converging similarity in
advertising practices, which leads to a lack of distinctiveness
and consequent loss of attention. As attention is critical for
effective communications, strategy convergence usually results

FIGURE 1
Strategic Framework for “Imaginative Intensity”
in failed communications. Briggs and Stuart (2006) find that
about $112 billion of $300 billion spent on advertising in
the United States is wasted, partly due to this phenomenon.
Several propositions relevant to the enhancement of imagina-
tive intensity are advanced.
Harnessing Imagination: The Borderless
Advertising Agency
Proposition 1: Skill-based application competencies can generally
be aggregated within an advertising agency. As imagination is
potentially unlimited, “imaginative intensity” requires the
harnessing of available imagination from both within and out-
side advertising organizations. Client organizations sometimes
assume that it is their agency or their own sole responsibility
to generate advertising ideas. They often rely heavily on adver-
tising agencies, granting them considerable responsibility for
generating ideas (Boyt, Lusch, and Naylor 2001). This limits
the amount of potential imagination available, and often results
in a failure to harness the best and most innovative ideas in the
marketplace. Imagination exists widely in the marketplace,
yet it is often not sufficiently exploited by advertisers. The
average individual (customers, stakeholders, etc.) has consider-
able untapped creative potential. The problem is advertisers’
unwillingness to give up their monopoly on the ad creation
process and exploit marketplace imagination. (Hamel 2002). A
Winter 2008 145
number of agencies wrongly assume that only they are capable
of coming up with good advertising ideas and, further, that
if they outsource idea generation to the marketplace, they are
lowering their own value-generating perceptions in the eyes
of the client. Creative ideas are also potentially widely avail-
able within client organizations, yet this source often goes
untapped as well.
Erroneous philosophies of some clients (e.g., “We’re pay-
ing the professionals to do it”) may also be an obstacle for
effectively harnessing the imagination in the marketplace.
The notion that professionals are most likely to generate the
best ideas may be incorrect. Often, established knowledge
structures of professionals may bias them toward traditional
norms. Generally, advertisers have not adequately developed
systems to exploit the imagination of employees, customers,
and stakeholders to reach their full “imaginative intensity”
potential. Consequently, the role of ad agencies may have to
change from just creating ads to also creating systems to har-
ness and exploit imagination in the marketplace.
Knowledge in Advertising: The Danger of
“Best Practices”
Proposition 2: While knowledge of “best practices” is useful, reli-
ance on this approach often leads to strategy convergence and com-
moditized advertising practices. “Imaginative intensity” requires
146 The Journal of Advertising
substantial deviations from “best practices.” Knowledge has
been described as a “justified true belief” (Nonaka 1994). The
application of knowledge is obviously critical for developing
effective advertising practices. In recent years, however, the
pace at which knowledge gets created, diffused, and made
obsolete has increased exponentially (Erevelles, Horton, and
Fukawa 2007). Thus, innovative advertising practices are rap-
idly imitated and new practices have to constantly be created
to take their place.
The utilization of “best practices” is widespread in the
advertising industry. Ad agencies often utilize successful
practices with earlier clients in their work for later clients
(Roberts 2008). While learning from experience is useful, the
proliferation of “best practices” is a danger to creativity, for it
can result in “strategy convergence,” with likely advertising
ineffectiveness ensuing over the long term (Hamel 2002).
Bengtson (1982) suggests that knowledge can be an obstacle
for creativity because “knowledge directs thinking.” The un-
imaginative use of “best practices” in advertising leads to the
“commoditization of advertising.” “Commoditization” is the
process that transforms something that is unique into one that
is undifferentiated. An ad that is not unique lacks creativity
and will likely be ineffective. In sum, deviations from “best
practices” are necessary for innovative advertising strategy.
Using Marketplace Ideas: Cocreation in
Advertising Strategy
Proposition 3: Cocreation is a critical strategic creativity tool for
enhancing “imaginative intensity.” Value-generating advertising
concepts are often a result of transforming ideas into appropri-
ate strategies. Until recently, however, these ideas were solely
generated by ad agencies in conjunction with their clients.
Today, technological innovations make it readily possible to
harness ideas from the broader marketplace—customers, cus-
tomer communities, or noncustomers—and also to cocreate
advertising campaigns with them (Sasser 2008). Achieving
participation in a cocreation process can be challenging, but
if successful, it is likely to result in considerable value creation
(Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004). Prior behavioral research
focusing on attaining customer participation has often used
social cognitive theory to help understand mechanisms that
influence customer participation in joint interactions with
firms (e.g., Dellande, Gilly, and Graham 2004; Moorman and
Matulich 1993). Social cognitive theory suggests that human
participation results from a dynamic interaction between per-
sonal factors, behavior, and the environment (Bandura 1977).
The nature and importance of these factors to customers will
determine the extent to which they will participate in a firm’s
desired project.
“Imagination” involves the act of producing new “mental
images.” It includes the creation of ideas, the creative applica-
tion of ideas, or the creative integration of ideas to generate new
value (Erevelles, Horton, and Fukawa 2007). It involves both
knowledge and creativity. Koslow, Sasser, and Riordan (2003)
argue that creativity requires both originality and appropriate-
ness; that is, creative ads not only communicate in innovative
ways, but are relevant to the context involved. Similarly, Politz
(1960) argues that imagination cannot be considered creative
unless the ideas or thoughts are accompanied by discipline,
purpose, and productiveness. A cocreation strategy permits
achievement of both attributes: While it allows vast amounts
of original imagination in the marketplace to be exploited, it
also allows the knowledge and discipline needed for creating
effective advertising to be amalgamated with it.
Effective Participation: Role Clarity, Ability,
and Motivation
Bowen’s (1986) model of causal factors for employee behav-
ior in service performance suggests that role clarity, ability,
and motivation help shape behavior. This is consistent with
Bandura’s (2001) framework that suggests that enabling,
guiding, and motivating people helps influence their behavior.
Dellande, Gilly, and Graham (2004) further demonstrate that
“role clarity” influences “acquisition of ability,” which in turn
influences “motivation.” They also found direct effects for all
three variables on compliance. A similar framework can be
used to enhance participation in the advertising cocreation
process, which moderates the transformation of marketplace
imagination into advertising ideas (see Figure 1). Advertisers
can influence participation in cocreation processes by manag-
ing role clarity, ability, and motivation. Subsequently, the
following propositions are presented:
Proposition 4a: Advertisers who more effectively achieve participant
“role clarity” will achieve more effective participation in advertising
cocreation processes. The issue of “role clarity” involves whether
or not participants understand the role they are expected to
perform (Bowen 1986). Bandura (2001) suggests that com-
munications systems can operate in two ways to influence role
clarity: first, by directly informing, enabling, motivating, and
guiding participants, and second, by indirectly motivating
and influencing social networks and communities. In both
cases, the value in the collaboration lies in the opportunity for
advertisers to uncover “grassroots” ideas related to their brand
or category. In many cases, these ideas have been incubating
during consumer exchanges in on-line blogs, message boards,
and chat rooms. An adept “role clarity strategy” can help focus
these ideas by tapping into the collective creativity of partici-
pants, who, in addition, are also “role aware.”
Proposition 4b: Advertisers who more effectively “select and enable”
participants will achieve more effective participation in advertising

cocreation processes. Even if stakeholders are clear on what they
need to do, they may not have the required ability to perform
their roles. In an advertising cocreation context, this will re-
quire stakeholders to possess product and brand knowledge,
as well as technology skills and ability. Not surprisingly,
stakeholders vary in their abilities to effectively undertake
cocreation roles. This variance may be traced to individual
differences such as prior knowledge, intellect, and technol-
ogy skills. Advertisers should establish criteria for customer
selection and then implement effective training programs for
knowledge enhancement. For example, contests whose rules
spell out the skills needed to compete, along with knowledge
essential for participation, can help achieve this. Such a process
draws on a self-selected group of people who are generally more
knowledgeable or are motivated to attain such knowledge.
Prior findings (e.g., Dellande, Gilly, and Graham 2004) in
related areas demonstrating that ability and training directly
influence behavior suggest that advertisers who better select
and enable participants will generate more effective participa-
tion in the cocreation process.
Proposition 4c: Advertisers who more effectively employ “reward
systems” will achieve more effective participation in advertising co-
creation processes. Finally, even if participants are clear on their
roles and have the abilities to perform them, they also must
be motivated to do so for participation to be effective (Bowen
1986). The two key sources of motivation typically are intrin-
sic (related to self-concept) and extrinsic (factors outside the
individual) in nature. Intrinsically motivated behavior occurs
when people engage in an activity primarily for its own sake,
whereas extrinsically motivated behavior is controlled by
rewards or consequences that are not essential to the activity
(Deci 1975). Prior studies (Bowers, Martin, and Luker 1990;
Dellande, Gilly, and Graham 2004) have supported the role
of motivation in generating participation for behavior similar
to that associated with advertising cocreation. This is also
consistent with Bandura’s (2001) framework, which asserts
that motivation helps to influence behavior. Many consumers
have significant intrinsic motivation to participate in cocre-
ation behavior simply because they want their ideas to be seen
and heard. Advertisers also have opportunities to successfully
impact behavior through extrinsic reward systems. Consumers
responding to reward systems often do so because of individual
reasons and situational factors. An example of such a reward
system is an on-line pay blogging service (e.g., payperpost
.com), where advertisers use knowledgeable people to write
blogs about the things they are familiar with. These people
are compensated for their work and are partially motivated by
the extrinsic rewards; however, part of their motivation may
also be tied to intrinsic benefits. Thus, advertisers should cre-
ate reward systems that stimulate both intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation to enhance participation.
Winter 2008 147
Leveraging Ideas from Communities
Proposition 5: Advertisers who monitor, shape, or support community
networks are likely to leverage untapped imagination for cocreated
advertising messages. Advertisers can also facilitate the process
of idea generation and cocreation by monitoring, shaping, or
supporting relevant social networks and communities (see
Bandura 2001). Today’s technological advances facilitate the
easy formation of consumer and nonconsumer communities
(e.g., on-line brand communities). Social network theory has
been used to help explain how individuals and their relation-
ships within computer-mediated networks help generate and
disseminate ideas (Wellman 1997). Network characteristics
such as composition, size, density of ties, and resources are
factors that influence the usefulness of a community (Well-
man and Frank 2001), and advertisers could monitor or shape
select communities. In networked communities, members
usually express their opinions and ideas about a brand. This
type of informal communication among groups of customers
and noncustomers, as well as between communities and the
general marketplace, is often perceived as more credible than
traditional advertising (Liu 2006). Many advertisers do not
fully appreciate the importance and influence of community-
generated content (Sullivan 2006). Community networks may
also be used as a surrogate for more traditional market research
methods (such as focus groups) to generate communication
ideas. The less artificial environment of these communities
(compared, for example, to focus groups) may serve to generate
crucial brand insights. By monitoring and supporting evolving
customer community networks, advertisers may tap into an
important source of creative ideas.
Discussion
As competition intensifies, advertisers need to focus more
on creative transformation rather than just on creative ap-
plication. Equilibrium is unrealistic in a fast-changing and
crowded marketplace, advertisers need to generate new ideas
and transform existing ideas to remain effective. Here we
describe how advertisers can cocreate advertising messages
with their stakeholders and, as a result, shorten the distance
between producers (creators of ads) and consumers (viewers of
ads). Harnessing marketplace imagination helps advertisers
improve advertising strategy creativity and accelerate idea
generation. An initial framework to enhance an advertiser’s
capacity to continuously generate and utilize transformational
ideas is presented. This research is consistent with current
trends in creativity research focusing on situational impact
on creativity (Koslow, Sasser, and Riordan 2006).
Our framework suggests several possibilities for future
research. One such area is an empirical study of client–
agency relationships that best facilitate imaginative intensity.
148 The Journal of Advertising
Specifically, what organizational and relational structures
(within and between advertisers and agencies) foster “imagina-
tive intensity?” How do trust, commitment, and cooperation
between agency and client influence the imagination-har-
nessing process and idea generation? Another area for future
research focuses on the best way to involve consumers in the
cocreation process. Similarly, what is the best way to involve
advertisers in consumer communities for cocreation? What
intrinsic and extrinsic rewards would maximize participation
and stimulate ideas? How should advertisers monitor and re-
main involved in consumer on-line community forums? What
type of new media forums are the best sources of innovative
ideas? Each of these questions could help us better understand
the use of nonconventional media to generate creative ideas
(Sasser, Koslow, and Riordan 2007).
Finally, research that deals with the use of cocreated content
to achieve various communications goals could be undertaken.
For example, are cocreated messages more effective for com-
municating product attributes or consumer experiences? Does
cocreation increase the effectiveness (e.g., ad or brand recall)
of advertising messages? How effective are cocreated com-
munications for the introduction of new products or brand
extensions? Future research should focus on understanding the
best ways to foster “advertising imagination.” The framework
presented in this paper may serve as a reasonable first step
toward reaching that goal.
REFERENCES
Ang, L. (1995), “The Incongruity-Resolution Theory of Adver-
tising Creativity,” Ph.D. dissertation, Australian Graduate
School of Management, University of New South Wales,
Sydney.
Arieti, Silvano (1976), Creativity: The Magic Synthesis, New York:
Basic Books.
Bandura, Albert (1977), “Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying
Theory of Behavioral Change,” Psychological Review, 84 (2),
191–215.
——— (2001), “Social Cognitive Theory of Mass Communica-
tion,” Mediapsychology, 3, 265–299.
Barabba, Vincent P. (1995), Meeting of the Minds: Creating the
Market-Based Enterprise, Boston: Harvard Business School
Press.
Bengtson, Timothy A. (1982), “Creativity’s Paradoxical Char-
acter: A Postscript to James Webb Young’s Technique for
Producing Ideas,” Journal of Advertising, 11 (1), 3–9.
Bowen, David E. (1986), “Managing Customers as Human Re-
sources in Service Organizations,” Human Resource Manage-
ment, 25 (3), 371–383.
Bowers, Michael R., Charles L. Martin, and Alan Luker (1990),
“Trading Places: Employees as Customers, Customers as
Employees,” Journal of Services Marketing, 4 (2), 55–69.
Boyt, Thomas E., Robert F. Lusch, and Gillian Naylor (2001),
“The Role of Professionalism in Determining Job Satisfac-
tion in Professional Services: A Study of Marketing Re-
searchers,” Journal of Service Research, 3 (4), 321–331.
Briggs, Rex, and Greg Stuart (2006), What Sticks: Why Most Ad-
vertising Fails and How to Guarantee Yours Succeeds, Chicago:
Kaplan Business.
Campbell, Donald T. (1960), “Blind Variation and Selective
Retention in Creative Thoughts as in Other Knowledge
Processes,” Psychological Review, 67 (November), 380–400.
Clancy, Kevin J., and Peter C. Krieg (2000), Counterintuitive
Marketing, New York: Free Press.
Deci, Edward L. (1975), Intrinsic Motivation, New York:
Plenum.
Dellande, Stephanie, Mary C. Gilly, and John L. Graham (2004),
“Gaining Compliance and Losing Weight: The Role of
Provider in Health Care Services,” Journal of Marketing, 68
(3), 78–91.
Erevelles, Sunil, Veronica Horton, and Nobuyuki Fukawa (2007),
“Imagination in Marketing,” Marketing Management Journal,
17 (2), 109–119.
Fourquet-Courbet, Marie-Pierre, Didier Courbet, and Marc
Vanhuele (2007), “How Web Banner Designers Work: The
Role of Internal Dialogs, Self-Evaluations, and Implicit
Communication Theories,” Journal of Advertising Research,
47 (2), 183–191.
Guilford, J. P. (1950), “Creativity,” American Psychologist, 5 (9),
444–454.
Hamel, Gary (2002), Leading the Revolution, Boston: Harvard
Business School Press.
Judson, Abe J., Charles N. Cofer, and S. Sidney Gelfand (1956),
“Reasoning as an Associative Process: II. ‘Direction’ in
Problem Solving as a Function of Reinforcement of Relevant
Responses,” Psychological Reports, 2 (December), 501–507.
Kabanoff, Boris, and John R. Rossiter (1994), “Recent Develop-
ments in Applied Creativity,” in International Review of In-
dustrial and Organizational Psychology, vol. 9, Cary L. Cooper
and Ivan T. Tobertson, eds., London: Wiley, 283–324.
Koslow, Scott, Sheila L. Sasser, and Edward A. Riordan (2003),
“What Is Creative to Whom and Why? Perceptions in
Advertising Agencies,” Journal of Advertising Research, 43
(1), 96–110.
———, ———, and ——— (2006), “Do Marketers Get the
Advertising They Need or the Advertising They Deserve?”
Journal of Advertising, 35 (3), 81–101.
Kover, A. J. (1995), “Copywriters’ Implicit Theories of Com-
munication: An Exploration,” Journal of Consumer Research,
21 (4), 596–611.
Liu, Yong (2006), “Word of Mouth for Movies: Its Dynamics
and Impact on Box Office Revenue,” Journal of Marketing,
70 (3), 74–89.
Lytton, Hugh (1971), “Observation Studies of Parent–Child
Interaction: A Methodological Review,” Child Development,
42 (3), 651–684.
Maier, Norman R. F. (1931), “Reasoning in Humans. II. The
Solution of a Problem and Its Appearance in Consciousness,”
Journal of Comparative Psychology, 86, 331–337.
May, Rollo (1975), The Courage to Create, New York: W. W.
Norton.

Mayer, Martin (1958), Madison Avenue U.S.A., Harmondsworth,
UK: Penguin Books.
Mellou, Eleni (1996), “The Two-Conditions View of Creativity,”
Journal of Creative Behavior, 30 (2), 126–143.
Moorman, Christine, and Erika Matulich (1993), “A Model
of Consumers’ Preventive Health Behaviors: The Role of
Health Motivation and Health Ability,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 20 (September), 208–228.
Murphy, Chris M. (2008), “Why Only Qualitative Research Can
Build Your Brand,” Research News, 25 (May), 22.
Nonaka, Ikujiro (1994), “A Dynamic Theory of Organizational
Knowledge Creation,” Organization Science, 5 (1), 14–37.
Ogilvy, David (1985), Ogilvy on Advertising, New York: Vintage
Books.
Osborn, Alex (1953), Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures
of Creative Thinking, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
O’Toole, John E. (1985), The Trouble with Advertising, 2nd ed.,
New York: Random House.
Politz, A. (1960), “The Dilemma of Creative Advertising,” Journal
of Marketing, 25 (2), 1–6.
Pracejus, J. W., G. D. Olsen, and T. C. O’Guinn (2006), “How
Nothing Became Something: White Space, Rhetoric, His-
tory, and Meaning,” Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (1),
82–90.
Prahalad, C. K., and Venkat Ramaswamy (2004), “Co-Creation
Experiences: The Next Practice in Value Creation,” Journal
of Interactive Marketing, 18 (3), 5–14.
Proctor, Stella, Tony Proctor, and Ioanna Papasolomou-Doukakis
(2002), “A Post-Modern Perspective on Advertisements
and Their Analysis,” Journal of Marketing Communications,
81 (1), 31–44.
Roberts, Ken (2008), “Creativity Is Not the Corner-Stone of
Branding,” Research News, 25 (May), 14–15.
Rossiter, J. R. (1994), “The RAM-Conveyor Theory of Creative
Strengtheners in Ads,” in Konsumentenforschung (Con-
sumer Research), Peter Weinberg, ed., Munich: Vahlen,
119–138.
———, and Steven Bellman (2005), Marketing Communications:
Theory and Applications, Sydney: Pearson Prentice Hall.
———, and Larry Percy (1987), Advertising and Promotion Man-
agement, New York: McGraw-Hill.
———, and ——— (1997), Advertising Communications and
Promotion Management, New York: McGraw Hill.
Rossman, Joseph (1931), The Psychology of the Inventor, Washing-
ton, DC: Inventor’s Publishing.
Sasser, Sheila L. (2008), “Creating Passion to Engage Versus En-
rage Consumer Co-creators with Agency Co-conspirators:
Winter 2008 149
Unleashing Creativity,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25
(3), 183–186.
———, Scott Koslow, and Edward A. Riordan (2007), “Creative
and Interactive Media Use by Agencies: Engaging an IMC
Media Palette for Implementing Advertising Campaigns,”
Journal of Advertising Research, 47 (September), 237–256.
Silveira, J. M. (1971), “Incubation: The Effect of Timing and
Length on Problem Solution and Quality of Problem Pro-
cessing,” master’s thesis, University of Chicago.
Smith, Steven M., and Steven E. Blakenship (1991), “Incuba-
tion and the Persistence of Fixation in Problem Solving,”
American Journal of Psychology, 104, 61–87.
Spotts, Harlan E., Marc G. Weinberger, and Amy L. Parsons
(1997), “Assessing the Use and Impact of Humor on Ad-
vertising Effectiveness: A Contingency Approach,” Journal
of Advertising, 26 (3), 17–32.
Stewart, David W., and David H. Furse (1986), Effective Television
Advertising: A Study of 1,000 Commercials, Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
———, and Scott Koslow (1989), “Executional Factors and
Advertising Effectiveness: A Replication,” Journal of Ad-
vertising, 18 (3), 21–32.
Sullivan, Laurie (2006), “Businesses Tap into Social Networks,
Blogs, Video Sharing,” Techweb Technology News (May 30),
available at www.techweb.com/wire/188700035 (accessed
February 1, 2008).
Wallas, Graham (1926), The Art of Thought, New York: Harcourt
Brace.
Ward, T. B., and K. N. Saunders (2003), “Creativity,” in En-
cyclopedia of Cognitive Science, Lynn Nagel, ed., New York:
Macmillan, 862–869.
Warnock, Mary (1983), “Imagination,” in The Arts: A Way of
Knowing, M. Ross, ed., Oxford: Pergamon Press, 73–83.
Wellman, Barry (1997), “An Electronic Group Is Virtually a
Social Network,” in Culture of the Internet, Sara Kiesler, ed.,
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 179–205.
———, and Kenneth Frank (2001), “Getting Support from
Personal Communities,” in Social Capital Theory and Research,
Nan Lin, Karen Cook, and Ronald Burt, eds., Chicago:
Aldine de Gruyter, 233–274.
Wing, Clive (2008), “Weaving Insights into a Coherent Brand
Strategy,” Research News, 25 (May), 16.
Yaniv, Ilan, and David E. Meyer (1987), “Activation and Meta-
cognition of Inaccessible Stored Information: Potential
Bases for Incubation Effects in Problem Solving,” Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,
13 (2), 187–205.