This may be the author’s version of a work that was submitted/accepted

for publication in the following source:

Kerr, Gayle & Richards, Jef

(2021)
Redefining advertising in research and practice.
International Journal of Advertising, 40(2), pp. 175-198.

This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/206632/

c 2020 Advertising Association

This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under a
Creative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use and
that permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the docu-
ment is available under a Creative Commons License (or other specified license) then refer
to the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recog-
nise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe that
this work infringes copyright please provide details by email to qut.copyright@qut.edu.au

License: Creative Commons: Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0

Notice: Please note that this document may not be the Version of Record
(i.e. published version) of the work. Author manuscript versions (as Sub-
mitted for peer review or as Accepted for publication after peer review) can
be identified by an absence of publisher branding and/or typeset appear-
ance. If there is any doubt, please refer to the published source.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2020.1769407
Kerr, G. and Richards, J. (2020) Redefining advertising in research and practice, International
Journal of Advertising, DOI: 10.1080/02650487.2020.1769407

Redefining Advertising in Research and Practice

ABSTRACT

With advertising practice and research changing significantly in the last decade, it is likely

that the definition of advertising also needs some transformation. Rather than broadening the

definition to eliminate key dimensions, this study seeks to redefine advertising by replicating

Richards and Curran’s 2002 study, which suggested the current US-based definition. Using

Delphi methodology, consensus is reached amongst a global panel of advertising experts. The

relevance of key dimensions of advertising – paid, mediated, identifiable-source, persuasion

and action – is investigated in relation to its current practice, research and teaching. The

resulting definition is compared to previous iterations and differences between academics,

practitioners and geography, developing important implications for theory and practice.

1
 INTRODUCTION

Moveable type was a watershed moment in the history of advertising. It was one of

the greatest definers and innovators of advertising practice, liberating the commercial word

from the time and cost constraints of human labour. That innovation can be argued to have

laid the foundation for more recent innovations attributed to the digital world, such as (1) new

media and formats, (2) changed consumer behaviour and (3) extended the effect of

advertising (Dahlen and Rosengren 2016). And while the first US television ad in 1941 was

like a press ad with a soundtrack, showing a Bulova watch and announcing the time, the mad

men of the 1960s used that as a launching point from which to evolve the advertising

discipline. Each technological innovation changed the media, the format, the consumer

response, and extended the advertising effect. Whether defined as “salesmanship in print” or

“paid, non-personal communication by an identified sponsor,” it was all still advertising. Ad

techniques changed, but the elemental aspects of what made it advertising did not really alter.

There is a belief that digital disruption will impel advertising to become “so different

in the (near) future that it will cease to be advertising as we currently know it” (Laczniak

2016, 352). This belief has been used as a rationale to assume a definition of advertising

broad enough to encompass many different things, from banner advertising to a Kanye West

song, while still not defining it in precise terms. In broadening the definition of advertising

too far, it is possible some of advertising’s unique identifiers have been lost. This is

especially problematic for government, the legal system, and self-regulators, which must

operationalize advertising as a bounded legal concept. Laws frequently state that

“advertising” must meet certain requirements, but if we can’t determine what is or is not

advertising, it is impossible to apply such a law. For example, Swedish law forbids

advertising to children under 12 (Shaver 2014, 104). If we don’t know the boundaries of what

is or is not advertising, it is impossible to comply with this law.

2
 But there are other reasons why we need a clear definition, not the least of which is

knowing the gamut of our expected expertise. As Huh (2016, 356) suggests “The definition

of advertising is inherently linked to the legitimacy of the advertising field as a unique

scientific discipline and fundamental to the field’s cohesive identity.”

Although some fields have no need for repeatedly revising definitions of their primary

terminology, the field of advertising, driven by technology, is one of constant change. Its very

foundation shifts from day to day, making a more dynamic approach to its definition

essential. But this also is a field that never has adopted a single, clear, statement of what

“advertising” means. Such a single, uniform, definition is needed, and it should be one that is

as enlightened by current advertising practice as possible. We will begin this process by

looking at some basic principles for revising the definitions that previously have been

proposed.

Principles for Revision

Before launching into another new definition of advertising, this study began by

reviewing MacInnis’ (2011) four evaluative criteria to envision and redefine key marketing

domains such as advertising, including the necessity for revision; the advantages from

revision; insights generated through revision, and maintaining parsimony. The application

and evaluation of these four criteria allows us “to see something that has been identified in a

new way, to reconfigure, shift perspective or change” (MacInnis 2011, p.138).

To address the first of these, the necessity of revision, while each new technology

shapes advertising, there are five important consequences of digital disruption, identified in

the literature, suggesting a revised definition is necessary. These are: (1) changes in consumer

empowerment and connectedness, (2) multi-platform media consumption and the inclusion of

paid, owned, and earned media in advertising decisions, (3) changes to advertising practice,

3
structure, management and remuneration, (4) the regulatory imperatives of a global

marketplace, and (5) the meaning and scope of advertising research (Dahlen and Rosengren

2016; Huh 2016; Kerr and Kelly 2017; Schultz 2016). These five key consequences and their

impact on advertising practice and research will be further discussed below.

Further, the necessity for revision also is dependent on the viability and acceptability

of the current definitions. The most recent definition by Dahlen and Rosegren (2016) defines

advertising as, “brand initiated communication intent on impacting people.” However, in

critiquing Dahlen and Rosengren’s (2016) definition, Huh (2016) asks whether changing

business practice is adequate justification for removing the very things, the key components,

that define the discipline of advertising. Stewart (2016, p. 349) also argues that “Too broad a

definition of advertising carries the risk that what is unique about advertising will be lost.”

A definition that does not include the right referents, or is too broad or too narrow,

cannot adequately define the construct. As a result it could not be used for legal or regulatory

purposes, or for any other purpose where specificity is demanded. Therefore, there is a need

for a revised definition to both accommodate the unique descriptors of advertising, as well as

the changes to the advertising environment in order to adequately describe and differentiate

the construct in practice, academia and in legal matters.

Furthermore, the only other well-cited definition, also used as a basis of comparison

by Dahlen and Rosengren, is more than 15 years old which, in Internet time, is ancient.

Before smartphones, short messaging services, Facebook, Twitter, and Google’s Pay Per

Click, Richards and Curran (2002) defined advertising as, “A paid, mediated form of

communication from an identifiable source, designed to persuade the receiver to take some

action, now or in the future.”

While advertising is still advertising, the changes in its manifestations necessitates

evaluating whether such a definition embraces these new forms, or whether it should. In this

4
case we also have the problem that there are many definitions out there, including the two

just mentioned, none of which has been adopted as the “real” definition of advertising by

academics or industry. And at a time when so many advertising agencies have begun to call

themselves marketing agencies, a definitive separation of terminology seems especially

needed.

And as Lacznaik (2016, 351) contends, updated definitions are “absolutely necessary

as scholars continue to extend theories within the domain of advertising.” Therefore, there is

a need for revision, and perhaps constant revision, to reflect incremental change in the

discipline, so that the definition is not too broad that it removes unique identifiers, too narrow

that it does not encompass its dimensions and nor too old that it does not accurately represent

current practice or research.

Regarding the second criterion, there are potential advantages from a revised

definition. From a theory building perspective, a variable field such as advertising must

“recognize what makes it unique and to identify the variables that it can contribute to testing

and qualifying broad theories from level fields” (Faber, Duff and Nan, 2012). Thus,

redefining advertising may provide meaning for reconfiguring constructs, building theory and

provide an agenda for subsequent research (Faber 2015).

From the view of practice, Campbell, et al. (2014, 8), suggest “greater definitional

clarity enables practitioners—both on the brand and agency sides—to streamline processes,

initiate clearer strategy, and respond to emerging ethical concerns.” Further, it is good science

to replicate research around a fundamental marketing domain, such as the definition of

advertising (Kerr, Schultz and Lings 2016). The increasing imperative of replication to build

rigour in our research and theory is attested by Special Issues in Replication in the Journal of

Advertising and the Journal of Marketing Communications. Therefore, taking a leading

definition and testing it in today’s environment makes sound academic sense.

5
 Addressing the final two criteria, a new definition may provide new insights as it

expands on the myopic Richards and Curran’s 2002 definition, which considers only a U.S.

perspective. Further, in contrast to Dahlen and Rosengren’s (2016) much broader offering, a

new definition which focuses on advertising’s unique attributes, could provide a more precise

and specific statement that describes the construct of advertising and its boundaries,

delineating what belongs to the construct and what does not. In doing so, it should

conceptualize what Thorson and Rogers (2012, 13) describe as, “a unique and cohesive field

that is ‘framed around advertisements’,” providing a useful reference in research, law, and

practice. And finally, there is no evidence that a new definition would require financial

investment, hence maintaining parsimony, MacInnis’ final criterion.

In sum, this study meets MacInnis’ evaluative criteria suggesting that there could well

be a need for further work in defining advertising. In particular, the aim of this study is to

give the construct of advertising a distinctive identity and precise meaning that can be

interpreted in law, in practice, as well as in theory building, which the most recent definition

of advertising does not (Dahlen and Rosengren 2016). Therefore this study chose to replicate

the last systematically-devised definition of advertising by Richards and Curran (2002), to

see whether the existing constructs could be applied to a digital and global world. Using the

same Delphi method, it recruits an expert and worldwide panel of advertising academics,

practitioners and also advertising regulators to scrutinize and challenge the existing

definition, reflect on change in practice and in academia, consider alternative viewpoints and

propose a global definition of advertising that is workable in research, practice and

regulation.

6
 THE NEED TO REDEFINE ADVERTISING

While the importance of defining “advertising” has been established elsewhere

(Richards and Curran 2002), the field of advertising is all about change, and it has been riding

technological waves of change over the past quarter century and beyond. Because the field is

constantly afflux, it is quite likely that the very boundaries of this field are shifting at an

unparalleled rate. Even research regarding advertising has evolved.

Changes in Advertising Research

Faber (2002) identified three changes in advertising research. The first of these was

the escalating research about the internet and digital platforms. The second change was the

inclusion of studies drawn from non-US populations, with articles by non-US authors

increasing from 4% of all articles published in the Journal of Advertising (JA) from 1980 to

1982 to 27% in 2010–2012 (Faber, 2015). Third, research extended the definition of

advertising inherent in the journal to include new contexts such as product placement,

sponsorship, and gaming.

“Rethinking the way advertising is defined and how it operates may suggest other

important variables for future advertising research,” suggests Faber (2015, p. 293). Stewart

concurs, stating that “updated definitions are absolutely necessary as scholars continue to

extend theories within the domain of advertising.” Definition is valuable. It often evokes an

exploration of how a concept works and encourages research to test its effects or its

boundaries. Definition also drives consensus on terminology to ensure meaningful research

and comparability of results (Campbell et al., 2014).

Transformation of Advertising Practice

7
 It is equally important that the definition of advertising captures the changes in

advertising practice. This is essential from an operational, ethical, and disciplinary

perspective. An understanding of the constructs of advertising may optimize advertising

processes to develop meaningful strategy and tactics. Similarly, it may clarify ethical

concerns and address the blurring between advertising and other content that is problematic

for regulators (Campbell et al., 2014). And, at a disciplinary level, definitions may help

determine the domain of professional organizations such as the American Marketing

Association (AMA) or the United Kingdom’s (UK) Advertising Association (AA), thereby

propagating a common language amongst increasingly geographically disparate practitioners

and separating closely related fields (Richards and Curran, 2002). And in that respect, a

uniform definition cutting across national borders offers the promise of better multinational

communication bridging geographically dispersed components of the field.

Also importantly, the blurring of contexts that Faber pre-empted in 2002 has become

a new typology of paid, owned, and earned media in practice, but perhaps less so in research.

Stewart contends that advertising as previously defined as paid media has decreased in its

importance. As Campbell et al. (2014, p. 7) suggest, “The internet – and the effects it has

brought along with it – fundamentally have upended the ‘buckets’ in which brand

communications were kept. All that is certain online is that forms of brand-related content

have multiplied.”

Another indicator of industry transformation is advertising expenditure. In key

markets such as the UK, China, Canada and Australia, advertising expenditure online

exceeded that of television as far back as 2013 (Clift, 2015). Google accounts for one-third of

total digital advertising revenues and the fastest growing medium is mobile internet, expected

to reach US$76 billion by 2019 (Statista 2017). Similarly, advertising expenditure in many

developing countries is accelerating. India, for example, recorded the greatest increase in

8
advertising expenditure, up 13.4% in 2017, compared to a worldwide increase of 4.2%

(Statista 2017).

It is not just the expenditure, the platforms and the disciplinary boundaries that have

changed, while advertising agencies also have been reinvented. Stuhlfaut and Windels (2019)

suggest that from the need to incorporate new technology into the advertising process, four

new structures for agencies have evolved. (1) Dispersed Structures – agencies hire outside

firms (2) Consultative structures - agencies form separate interactive departments (3)

Collaborative structures – assign digital specialists to creative teams, and (4) Holistic

structures – everything and everyone is digital.

Perhaps the most effective, and disruptive, example of a holistic structure is the

consultancy, such as Accenture, PwC, IBM and Deloitte. In 2018, these four consultancies,

with a combined revenue of $13.2 billion, all featured in Ad Age's ranking of the 10 largest

agency companies in the world. Matt Lawson, the fifth most awarded Executive Creative

Director in the world, moved from McCann Melbourne to Deloitte, contending, “It is

inspiring to see a truly intelligent business putting creativity at the heart of their offering. ”

The increasing reliance on technology has led to what many industry thinkers describe

as Tactification or “the current obsession with the tactical elements of marketing at the

expense of the other deeper marketing activities that precede and predicate them” (Hudson in

Belch, Belch, Kerr, Waller and Powell, 2019). It is a focus on the tactics, at the expense of

strategy. A result of many long-standing issues, such as the short tenure of marketing

professionals, the narrowing of KPIs to short-term outcomes, the desire for change and

newness and the promise of success from the vendors of marketing technology.

Advertising, and the advertising industry, of today is not the same as at the beginning

of this millennium. The transformation of the industry and the priority for research to

9
investigate the changes in the domain demand re-examining how we circumscribe this

discipline.

CONTEMPORARY DEFINITIONS OF ADVERTISING

The next section investigates how academics, textbooks and industry associations

have responded to the changing advertising world in their definitions.

Academic Definitions of Advertising Types and Constructs

As early as 2002, Richards and Curran believed, “Technologies have led to [a]

convergence of traditional media and promotional methods, putting old definitions up for

review. Advertising is a word ingrained in our lexicon and, as such, should convey a

consistent meaning, at least among advertising professionals and students of advertising”

(p.75). Drawing upon a diverse pool of leading US academics, practitioners and regulators,

Richards and Curran (2002) defined advertising using five descriptors: (1) paid, (2) mediated,

(3) identifiable source, (4) persuasion, and (5) action.

Other researchers have tried to define internet advertising. Leckenby and Li (2000)

use most of those same descriptors, suggesting “[I]nteractive advertising is any paid or

unpaid promotion of products, services or ideas by an identified sponsor to consumers

through mediated means.” Ha (2008, p .31), on the other hand, describes online advertising in

somewhat different terms, as “[D]eliberate messages placed on third-party websites including

search engines and directories available through internet access.”

The importance of defining advertising in the context of theory already has been

addressed. However, one of the best enactments of this comes from Thorson and Rogers

(2012), who in opening their book, “Advertising Theory,” presented a classification scheme

to help define advertising. Centered around a particular context, such as historical or business

10
or legal, advertising is defined by a range of descriptors: audience, devices, media channels,

message effect (intended or unintended), advertising organizations and message sources,

either paid or unpaid (Thorson and Rogers 2012). These key words have evolved from and

reoccur throughout the various definitions from 1960 to 2002. For example, classifications

such as audience, message source, paid, and message effect (action) are evident in Richards

and Curran (2002).

More recently, Campbell et al. (2014, p. 8) also proposed a typology, rather than a

definition, as “A typology to clarify understanding, anchor definitions and unite ongoing

research on the emerging topic of online advertising and brand related content sorely is

needed.” Their two-dimensional typology includes, “Who has created the content?” and “Has

there been any payment for its creation or placement or both?” This typology essentially

identifies the author of the message as the brand, the consumer, or the news or media

platforms and whether they were paid for producing or placing the content. It deals with some

of the key constructs in Richards and Curran’s definition including paid media, mediated

communication and identifiable source. It does not address consumer persuasion and action.

The typology also includes some of Thorson and Roger’s classifications such as media

channels, message effect (intended or unintended), advertising organizations and message

sources.

The Dahlen and Rosengren Approach

The most recent attempt to define advertising, by Dahlen and Rosengren (2016),

suggests that advertising is “brand-initiated communication intent on impacting people.” This

definition, built by the authors and tested in a small survey of 57 practitioners and academics

offers some interesting ideas, but is problematic from a number of perspectives. First, and

most obvious, from a methodological perspective the sample size of 57 is very small for an

11
international survey. Further, their research used a convenience snowball sample, further

limiting the study’s generalizability.

The authors report “the use of expert judges in developing a definition of advertising

is similar to that used by Richards and Curran (2002),” but this is clearly not the case. More

than half of the academics are not professors but more junior recruits and given the absence

of any other recruitment criteria, such as award-winning teaching or research, there is little to

qualify the respondents as “experts.” And the methodological approach is entirely different.

Even though Dahlen and Rosengren (2016) mistakenly and repeatedly call a Delphi method a

“survey,” it clearly is different. Also importantly, Richards and Curran’s (2002) Delphi panel

was indeed composed of experts, including some of the biggest names in American

advertising and academia. Another important point of contrast is that Richards and Curran

included key decision-makers in self-regulatory organizations, offering a necessary legal and

self-regulatory perspective missing from the work of Dahlen and Rosengren (2016), whose

definition of advertising clearly could not be used in legal or government matters.

Their interpretation of the results likewise is problematic. Among all 22 variables

investigated, the mean values of the two advertising definitions Dahlen and Rosengren tested

– Richards and Curran’s (2002) and their own – are the lowest rating, marginally above the

5.5 mid-point of the scale. This suggests that the sample in general did not accept nor reject

the definitions. In fact, the authors reported that the Richards and Curran definition (M =

5.56) was not statistically significant, yet they did not report whether their own definition’s

mean value (M = 5.95) was statistically significant. Further, Richards and Curran’s (2002)

definition is supported by academics (6.31), but rejected (4.25) by professionals. Dahlen and

Rosengren’s (2016) definition is supported by professionals (6.40), but their definition is not

supported by academics who take a neutral position (5.69). The Richards and Curran (2002)

definition is actually better accepted by academics than Dahlen and Rosengren’s offering. As

12
Huh (2016, 358) suggests, “This very interesting result did not get the proper attention from

the authors.” Therefore, the validity and generalizability of this definition is debatable given

their small sample and interpretation of results.

The other issue is the definition itself. Other authors have highlighted Dahlen and

Rosengren’s misinterpretation of mediated communication, e.g., “The authors state that

‘brands are increasingly advertising through own channels, ranging from social media to

websites and apps, which would not be a mediated communication,’ but all of these examples

are actually mediated forms of communication” (Huh, 2016, 357).

Unfortunately, the proposed Dahlen and Rosengren definition could apply equally to

public relations, or even journalism or other fields outside of marketing communication. A

brand-initiated communication intent on impacting people could describe a political party

delivering a policy speech or a sign that says “Office closed.” Neither of these are generally

considered advertising. Equally, the definition raises the question of what constitutes a

brand. If we consider the volume of work around personal branding, then under Dahlen and

Rosengren’s definition, a song by Kanye West must be an advertisement, as his own brand-

initiated communication is “impacting people.” Further, the definition focuses heavily on the

behavior of the audience. A firm can advertise with no apparent or immediate effect, but it is

still advertising. Stewart (2016, 349) suggests, “Defining advertising as ‘impacting people’

is far too general and non-specific to facilitate accountability.”

In 2016, Stewart demonstrated how some important tenants never change. Revisiting

his article from 1992, Stewart identified seven important issues in the definition of

advertising. These are: (1) the need for accountability (2) requirement to measure effects (3)

relationship of media to advertising (4) relationship of advertising to other parts of the

marketing mix (5) support for the creative function (6) understanding advertising in context

13
(7) recognize the purposefulness of consumers to influence and control advertising effects.

He applied these tenants to critique the Dahlen and Rosengren definition.

First, according to Stewart, the definition is not clear about its intended effect or its

measurement. Second, advertising is not “the totality of the marketing activities of an

organization.” Third, there is no mention of creative function or persuasive messages. Fourth,

it does not recognize that advertising exists in a competitive context and paying attention to

advertising takes consumer attention from somewhere else. And finally, it does not

incorporate an understanding of consumer control or response. Stewart concludes, “The

traditional definition of advertising remains relevant and provides a clearly identified set of

activities with defined outcomes that are still necessary. Redefining advertising to capture

other non-advertising related activities may serve advertising agencies and academic

advertising departments, but it is at odds with reality and diminishes advertising as a

discipline and an activity.” (2016, 350).

In sum, Dahlen and Rosengren eliminate many of the key dimensions of advertising,

delivering a definition that is so broad it fails to describe the construct of advertising and its

boundaries. A case might be made that the disciplinary boundaries are blurring anyway, so

this does not matter. However, we suggest that this definition extends beyond even marketing

communication to include any communication, from a “Keep Left” sign to a retrenchment

letter to staff. Both are “brand-initiated communications intent on impacting people.” The

definition does not determine what is advertising and what is not, and could not be used

anywhere precision is needed. So, despite this new attempt, we still have no generalizable,

international, contemporary definition of advertising.

14
Textbook and Practitioner Definitions of Advertising

Understanding what constitutes advertising is essential for educators to deliver

curriculum built on relevant theory and responsive to industry change (Kerr et al., 2011). It

also is important for consistency in advertising texts, evidenced when in 1961 the AMA

Committee on Definitions argued for uniformity of marketing terms to avoid textbook

authors wasting pages by creating and defending their own definitions (Bennett, 1995, p. v).

The need for an appropriate definition is augmented by the desire for consensus. Yet

looking at textbook definitions, it does not appear that advertising authors are following the

AMA Committee’s suggestions. Building on the work of Richards and Curran (2002), who

investigated the way leading US textbooks defined advertising, we extend their list to include

the current textbook definitions. As shown in Table 1, across the last 20 years, the leading

textbooks still define advertising in terms of the same, traditional descriptors of paid, non-

personal, mass media, identified sponsor, and persuasion. Only Arens in his most recent

iteration has adopted the Richards and Curran (2002) definition. Similarly, the AMA (2013)

uses descriptors such as paid, non-personal, identified sponsor, mass media, and persuasion,

while the AA borrowed Bullmore’s 1983 definition for Advertising Pays 3 (AA, 2015).

Table 1

Comparison of Textbook Definitions 2000-2019

Prior to 2000 2016 2019

Arens The non-personal The structured and A paid, mediated form

communication of composed of communication
information, usually nonpersonal from an identifiable
paid for and usually communication of source, designed to
persuasive in nature, information, usually persuade the receiver
about products (goods paid for and usually to take some action,
and services) or ideas persuasive in nature, now or in the future
by identified sponsors about products (2018)
through various media (goods, services and
(1996) ideas) by identified
sponsors through
various media (2015)

15
 Belch and Belch Any paid form of Any paid form of non- Any paid form of non-
nonpersonal personal personal
communication about communication about communication about
an organization, an organization, an organization,
product, services or product, service, or product, service, or
idea by an identified idea by an identified idea by an identified
sponsor (1998) sponsor (2012) sponsor (2019)
O’Guinn, Allen A paid, mass-media A paid, mass-media A paid, mass-media
and Semenik attempt to persuade attempt to persuade attempt to persuade
(2000) (2013) (2018)
Wells Burnett Paid, nonpersonal A paid form of Paid non-personal
and Moriarty communication from persuasive communication from
an identified sponsor communication that an identified sponsor
Moriarty, using mass media to uses mass and using mass media to
Mitchell, Wood persuade or influence interactive media to persuade or influence
and Wells an audience (1998) reach broad audiences an audience (2019)
in order to connect an
identified sponsor
with buyers (a target
audience), provide
information about
products (goods,
services, and ideas),
and interpret the
product features in
terms of the
consumer’s needs and
wants (2015)

As is clear here, there are many ways to define advertising and little consensus.

Therefore, this study replicates and extends the work of Richards and Curran (2002), using

the Delphi method to achieve the consensus of leading academics and practitioners.

Examining the five dimensions of the Richards and Curran definition, this research asks the

question: What are the constructs that define advertising?

METHOD

A Delphi study is “a method for structuring a group communication process so that

the process is effective in allowing a group of individuals, as whole, to deal with a complex

problem” (Linstone and Turoff, 1975, p.3). The benefit of this method is that it delivers “the

16
most reliable consensus of opinion from a group of experts” (Dalkey and Helmer, 1963, p.

458). By using email and anonymity it avoids potential peer pressure, while facilitating real-

time participation by experts from all over the world (Gupta and Clarke, 1996; Kerr and

Kelly 2017; Linstone and Turoff, 2011).

Dahlen and Rosengren (2016) criticised this method, citing Winkler and Moser

(2006). However, this critique focused on the common use of Delphi in technological

forecasting, analyzing data from “future-oriented studies looking at least five years ahead of

today” (p63). While the current study does not entail forecasting, and clearly does not

investigate feasibility or group estimates, many of the recommendations of Winkler and

Moser are evident in its design, including: (1) high degree of heterogeneity and inclusion of

participants known to have a maverick perspective on issues; (2) avoiding a pyramid search

where experts recommend other experts; (3) qualitative and quantitative feedback; (4)

feedback is argumentative and no-double entries.

The Delphi process began with the first wave of broad, open-ended questions. From

these responses a calibrated second wave was developed to measure expert agreement. The

third iteration presented the final definition for comment. Each wave brings the anonymous

panel closer to consensus, which is suggested to be the true or correct answer to solve the

problem (Larreche and Montgomery, 1977; Taylor and Judd, 1994).

Procedure for Selecting Experts

The quality of the judgment is only as good as the selection of the experts (Kelley,

2007; Kerr et al., 2016; Linstone and Turoff, 1975; Richards and Curran, 2002). Therefore,

Delbecq, Van de Ven and Gustafson’s (1975) five-step procedure was followed. The first

step established criteria for expert opinion. For academics, this was categorized as expertise

in teaching, authorship of textbooks, and publication in the field’s top two journals (Journal

17
of Advertising Research (JAR) and Journal of Advertising (JA). Practitioners were required

to be a CEO or organizational head of an advertising, media, or digital agency, or head of a

Self-Regulatory Organization (SRO).

The second step was to then populate this list with names. Leading advertising

academics were identified through searches of teaching and research award winners and

textbook authors from advertising academy websites. A list of leading practitioners was

assembled from websites identifying a diversity of winners of advertising awards and key

people in industry associations and the trade press. In addition, a number of experts with

somewhat maverick views were deliberately included to provoke thought (Winkler and

Moser 2016).

Two of the previous panel members from the 2002 study, who still met these criteria,

were also included. This guaranteed a high degree of heterogeneity (Winkler and Moser

2016) and the number of potential panellists populated in this way made Step Three, the

snowballing stage (where experts nominate other experts), unnecessary. This avoided what

others have described as a problematic pyramid search (Winkler and Moser 2016). Instead,

the study progressed to the next step where experts were ranked in accordance with the

chosen criteria. To ensure the definition was truly global, three geographic regions

(US/Canada, UK/Europe/Africa and Asia-Pacific/South America) were equally populated.

The final step was to invite the selected experts to participate in the Delphi panel.

Twenty panel members were invited. Two of these agreed to participate but were then

unavailable at the start of the study. Therefore, eighteen panel members, including nine

advertising academics and nine practitioners (six each from the US/Canada,

UK/Europe/Africa and Asia-Pacific/South America) formed the expert panel (see Table 2).

18
 TABLE 2

Members of the Expert Panel

Criteria How Experts Were Position Country

Identified
Academics
President or former Searched academy President or former US, Netherlands,
president of websites Presidents of AAA, Australia
advertising academy Icoria and ANZAA
Research in top Consulted 2002 panel; Leading authors US, Canada, UK
advertising journals Searched journals (traditional and
digital) published in
JA or JAR
Expertise in teaching Consulted 2002 panel; Textbook author and/ China, South Africa,
List of award winners or awarded teacher South America
from academy’s
websites; Searched
textbooks
Industry
CEO of advertising Consulted 2002 panel; CEOs of advertising US, Sweden, South
or media agency List of Gold award or media agencies America, Australasia
winning agencies from
Cannes 2014
CEO or chief List of Gold award Chief Officers in Australia, UK
position in digital winning agencies from digital agencies
agency Cannes 2014
Head of SRO Consulted 2002 Panel; Head or executive US, Belgium, South
Searched SRO websites position in SRO in Korea
US, EU and South
Korea
Two withdrew – Academic researcher UK, Industry Media CEO from US

The sample size of 18 meets Delphi standards, where 10 to 15 (Kelley, 2007; Taylor

and Judd, 1994) is deemed an appropriate sample size. The recruited sample of 18 is also

larger than the original 14 that comprised the 2002 study.

Administrating the Delphi study

The study design met the four essential prerequisites of a Delphi study (Linstone and

Turoff, 1975; Rowe and Wright, 1999):

19
  All panel responses were anonymous.
 These anonymous responses were shared amongst all panellists to provide controlled feedback and
improve judgement accuracy (Rowe, Wright and McColl, 2005).
 This feedback provided a mechanism for panel members to consider the views of other experts and
even rethink their own judgement, in order to ensure convergence towards an objectified group result
or clustering around alternative viewpoints (Rowe et al., 2005).
 Consensus or group judgement was assessed as a statistical aggregation of the group response (Rowe
and Wright, 1999).

Also in accordance with Delphi protocol, this study was administered using Linstone and

Turoff’s (1975) four phases.

Phase 1: Exploration of the subject

To start, statements were generated by the panel in response to research questions

from Richards and Curran’s 2002 definition of advertising. The questions explored the five

constructs those researchers initially used to define advertising including (1) paid, (2)

mediated communication, (3) identifiable source, (4) persuasion, and (5) action. These

questions were extended as respondents were challenged whether any other key constructs

should be included; whether there should be any additions or exclusions from that definition.

Panel members were also asked additional questions about the value of defining advertising.

The resulting Wave 1 questionnaire was pretested on a small group of academics and emailed

to the Delphi panel.

Because the best cue to expertise is the presence of strong arguments (Rowe and

Wright, 2011), the panel’s Wave 1 responses were independently coded by principal

researchers for meaning and appropriateness based on: (1) presence of strong arguments that

explicate clear causation, and (2) removal of similar or duplicate arguments. Inter-coder

reliability, calculated by Hosti’s formula (Davis, 1997), was 96.08, representing excellent

agreement (Altman, 1991). Any disagreement was discussed and resolved between coders.

The resulting list of 102 statements formed the Wave 2 questionnaire.

20
Phase 2: Reaching a group judgement

The sharing of anonymous responses to Wave 1 acts as a catalyst for free thinking,

inciting a change of mind or reinforcing existing positions. Either way drives consensus and

confirms the panel’s judgement (Linstone and Turoff, 1975). After reviewing anonymous

Wave 1 responses, panelists rated their agreement with each of the 102 statements on the

Wave 2 questionnaire, using a scale from 0 (no agreement) to 100 (total agreement)

(Dickinson and Kerr, 2014: Kelley, 2007; Kerr, 2009).

Phase 3: Exploration of differences

Only in cases of significant disagreement among the panel experts, as identified

through mean responses to Wave 2, is undertaken in Phase 3 (Linstone and Turoff, 1975).

Because there was clear consensus, no further iterations were deemed necessary. However, a

copy of the resulting definition was sent out to the panel for final comment.

Phase 4: Final evaluation

The statistical average of the experts’ percentage of agreement in the final iteration is

considered to indicate group judgment (Rowe and Wright, 1999). Any agreement over 70%

represents the consensus of the panel, in accordance with the Delphi decision rule (Dickinson

and Kerr, 2014; Kerr et al., 2016; Kerr, 2009). Statements of less than 70% agreement (43 out

of 102) were removed from the analysis, identifying 59 statements on which the panel

achieved consensus.

This aggregated group response is further investigated in terms of frequency

distributions to identify patterns of agreement, as well as bimodal distributions and extreme

outliers (Rowe and Wright, 1999). Frequency distributions were also explored for differences

21
between academics and practitioners and also by geographical region. These results are

presented in the next section.

RESULTS

The panel felt that “The word advertising obviously encompasses a lot more things

than what the word was traditionally meant to convey. But it still seems to do the job” (81%

agreement). The panel conceded that advertising was defined in a number of different ways

by government, academics, advertisers, and consumers. First, advertising must be defined in

regulation and statute as part of the national economy. “If the economy requires preapproval

of advertising by the government, then a narrowly drawn definition is important” (70%

agreement). Secondly, there was consensus that “it is important to revise and update

definitions to take into account what is happening in practice” (84% agreement). This is

especially important as, “digital and data mean that each constituent part (of marketing

communications) is increasing its remit of operations – we call it scope creep” (70%

agreement).

There was also consensus that, “for effective remit of industry trade bodies and

training of those coming into the industry – either commercially or academically – it is

essential to attempt to define and update the boundaries … accepting it is fraught and will be

blurred” (79% agreement). It was felt that the definitions of the different marketing

communication disciplines help identify a core set of activities. This differentiation was

thought to be more important than any overlap in these activities (79% agreement).

Dimensions of the Definition

The study then investigated the five constructs used in the Richards and Curran

(2002) study.

22
Paid as a Descriptor of Advertising

The panel felt that the definition should be viewed more broadly (76% agreement)

and that paid did not fully describe what advertising does (73% agreement). They agreed, “In

a world of paid, earned and owned opportunities, paid is still important but not the only form

of advertising strategy” (78% agreement).

It also was thought that paid was being more widely interpreted as “paid for by the

advertiser,” rather than its traditional remit of paid to a media channel for placement. Akin to

the Campbell et al. (2014) definition, paid could mean remuneration for content creation,

media ideas, or even partnerships. Sometimes this remuneration may not even be in terms of

dollars, but rather in exchange for reach, influence, or sharing of assets. The panel agreed

(74%), “I think that ‘paid’ in the definition is traditionally seen as referring to the media buy

that secures distribution for the ad content. This is where the word gets problematic, because

where does that leave things like events/stunts, e-mail and content marketing, or a host of

other ‘non-traditional’ media?”

Central to this discussion was the idea of intent. There was consensus that, “Instead of

Paid, I think a more useful way of thinking about it is through the idea of ‘intent’. Regardless

of whether it is paid, owned or earned, the intent that a brand/advertiser is trying to change

behaviours/attitudes is what is significant. The act of trying and the intent behind it is, for me,

what makes something advertising” (76% agreement).

Mediated Communication

Richards and Curran (2002) described mediated communication as, “that which is

conveyed to an audience through print, electronics or any method other than direct person-to-

person contact.” Like paid, the panel interpreted this construct more broadly to include

23
messages mediated by technology, including direct person-to-person contact (71%

agreement), promoted word-of-mouth (71% agreement), and even aspects of social media

which involved person-to-person contact (69%), such as a reply to a comment on a forum. In

fact, the panel agreed (71%), “Advertising can now be targeted at individuals through

personal devices such as mobile phones, so the term should be modified to avoid ambiguity

with the phrase ‘other than direct person-to-person’ contact.”

Identifiable source

There was strong consensus that “I’ve never seen a brand investing in advertising

without expecting to be identified (except in teaser campaigns).” Therefore, the panel felt that

“identifiable source” still makes sense (74% agreement). It is about “the consumer knowing

where it comes from” (87% agreement).

Persuasion

The idea of intent also emerged in terms of persuasion. “Advertising is always about

persuasion. Even if it is to inform, that’s a form of persuasion. There is always an intent”

(84% agreement). It was felt that it was important to emphasize that not all advertising touch

points need to be persuasive, just the cumulative effect. Informational advertising could lead

to persuasion. “Persuasion doesn’t have to sit at every part of that funnel or journey, but the

cumulative effect of that journey needs to be persuasive” (84% agreement). “Persuasion is

simply another form of ‘influence’ which was part of the old definition” (85% agreement).

Action

Action was interpreted to include affective, cognitive, and attitudinal change, not just

behavioural. “The notion of persuasion suggests that advertising is changing something – an

24
attitude or a level of knowledge. This is an action that I think advertising can be part of doing

– and sometimes a huge part” (84% agreement). Furthermore, this action may happen

immediately or in the future. “Econometrically, brands tend to look at both the short and

long term impact of advertising, and while action-orientated communications (buy this now,

do this etc.) have a short term impact, branding and equity campaigns (Coca-

Cola=Happiness) still influence action across the longer term” (87% agreement).

Additions or Subtractions

Panellists suggested changing the words “receiver” and “source” (80% agreement).

Non-personal was considered redundant with highly targeted and personalized advertising

(79% agreement). The panel also suggested that “It should not be just paid, but include

owned and earned” (73% agreement). Further, the panel suggested that the new definition

also incorporate the notion of intent (76% agreement).

THE NEW DEFINITION

The consensus of the panel was forged into a new definition, where each of the key

dimensions received strong agreement of 80% or more. The definition was sent out to the

panel for final comment, and a couple of minor issues raised by two panellists were resolved

by the researchers. The new definition is:

Advertising is paid, owned, and earned mediated communication, activated by an

identifiable brand and intent on persuading the consumer to make some cognitive,

affective or behavioural change, now or in the future.

25
Differences to the Old Definition

The panel made a number of important changes to Richards and Curran’s 2002

definition. The first of these is that paid has been extended to include owned media and the

generation of earned media. This was vital to industry, as increasingly their time is spent

developing content for owned assets or strategies to generate earned media or using paid

media to trigger onward conversations. Therefore, this might be seen as reflecting a real shift

in the industry since 2002.

Mediated communications was thought to be important to the definition, although this

was interpreted more broadly to include technology-mediated word-of-mouth. Identifiable

source was also critical to advertising, although the word “source” (like receiver) was not

particularly liked by the panel and replaced by the more colloquial “brand/consumer

interaction.”

Persuasion, or at least the intent of persuasion, also defined advertising. Rather than

“designed to persuade,” the new definition suggests that advertising is “intent on persuasion.”

This also addresses issues raised by the panel that persuasion is the cumulative outcome,

rather than necessarily the objective of every piece of advertising. Consequently, action is

broadened to accommodate thinking and feeling as an outcome of advertising, rather than just

behaviour or purchase. In line with the comments on persuasion, “now or in the future”

remains unchanged.

Differences to the latest definition

The definition developed in this research also was compared with the most recently

published definition of advertising by Dahlen and Rosengren (2016) on the basis of two

important measures. The first measure was the postulates delineated by Schultz (2016, p.

279) to “provide a context for defining the field.” That is, (1) the definition considers

26
consumers, sellers, and the brand, (2) draws from a psychological model, (3) focuses on

persuasion, and (4) seeks some measurable change in psychological or communication effect.

The second measure was the same criterion that Dahlen and Rosengren (2016) used to test

their definition. This included all of the elements of media and format, consumer behaviour,

and extended effects of advertising and formed a second basis for comparison of the two

definitions.

A small, convenience sample of 43 academics and industry practitioners were asked

to rate the fit of the criteria with the two definitions. While the results are only a small sample

and clearly not generalizable, they provide strong confirmation of the new definition. As

shown in Table 3, the definition proposed in this research has a very strong fit with three of

Schultz’s four postulates, including consumers, sellers and the brand (39); persuasion (43);

psychological or communication effect (37). The fourth postulate of measureable change has

a slightly lesser fit, although at 29 it is still more than twice the number of the Dahlen and

Rosengren definition. Table 3 also shows the results of the criteria used by Dahlen and

Rosengren. Compared to their definition, the definition proposed in this research performs

much better on paid media format (42 vs 22), hybrid media format (30 vs 18) and about the

same (25 vs 26) on non-paid media format. The new definition is slightly stronger on

receiving advertising, partaking in advertising, customer audience and traditional effects. The

only criteria on which the Dahlen and Rosengren definition beats it is extended audience (13

vs 25).

27
 TABLE 3

Comparison between Definitions

Proposed Dahlen &

definition Rosengren
N= 43 definition
N = 57
Does the definition include … Yes No Not Yes No Not
sure sure
Consumers, sellers and the brand 39 4 32 8 3
Persuasion 43 28 13 2
Psychological or communication effect 37 6 25 9 9
Some measurable change 29 6 8 11 24 4
Paid media ad format 42 1 22 17 4
Hybrid media ad format 30 1 12 18 23 2
Nonpaid media ad format 25 14 4 26 15 2
Brand initiated 42 1 43
Non–brand initiated 3 39 1 1 42
Receiving advertising 28 6 9 16 14 13
Partaking in advertising 16 10 17 11 20 12
Customer audience 37 4 3 31 6 6
Extended audience 13 16 14 25 14 4
Traditional effects 32 1 10 23 16 4
Extended effects 13 9 21 13 16 14

Therefore, the definition proposed in this paper scores better than the Dahlen and

Rosengren (2016) definition on Schultz’s four postulates for defining the field of advertising.

Even applying the same criteria that Dahlen and Rosengren (2016) used to justify their own

definition, the definition derived in the current study performs stronger by comparison.

Differences between Academics and Industry

The main differences between academics and industry expert opinion were in the area

of paid, owned, and earned media. For example, industry experts felt very strongly that

“paid” media may no longer describe advertising (87%). “Paid” is still important but not the

only form (83%) and maybe it should be “paid, shared” (86%) and that “paid” is often used to

28
generate earned media (81%). Academics also had issues with the word “paid” as the

descriptor of advertising. One suggestion was that, “Perhaps there is merit in looking at the

word commercial e.g. commercial messages if we don’t want to say paid”(81% compared to

industry 65%)

Another area of difference was academics’ broader perception of action as cognitive,

affective and even sub-conscious processing. Academics felt very strongly (91% agreement

compared to industry 79%) that “an action can be behavioural or attitudinal and doesn’t have

to be a purchase”. Academics were also in stronger agreement (79% compared to industry

64%) on the importance of defining advertising. Again, defining advertising is important to

academics for their teaching and their research.

Dahlen and Rosengren (2016) also observed a division between practitioners and

academics. Their definition of advertising was supported by practitioners, but not by

academics. In contrast, although there was division on some aspects, the definition proposed

by the authors of this research has the strong consensus (80% agreement or more) of both

practitioners and academics involved in the research.

Overall though, it seems that industry thinkers are leading the charge for a broader

interpretation of advertising. This appears little different from Richards and Curran’s 2002,

where renowned industry guru, Jeff Goodby, argued, “I think ‘paid’ is entirely arbitrary.

There is a lot of advertising that isn't paid. Think about how many times the same people who

want this in the definition have said: ‘The best advertising is word-of-mouth’ (and thus not

paid for). It's dumb to limit it this way.” The new definition shares his sentiments.

Global Variations

An important finding is the fact that in 100 out of the 102 questions in Wave 2, there

was no global difference. In areas where we might expect the greatest differences in terms of

29
advertising practice, for example the US compared with Asia or South America, we find

surprising similarity. This is perhaps confirmation that a global understanding of advertising

is already a mindset.

The two questions where a geographic difference was noted are worthy of further

consideration. The statement, “It should not just be paid, but include earned and owned”

achieved 74% agreement in US and Canada; 76% Asia-Pacific/South America and just 58%

agreement (75% industry and 40% academic) in the UK/Europe/South Africa. This highlights

the academic resistance to the inclusion of owned and earned media as part of the definition

in the UK/Europe/South Africa region.

The second geographical difference concerns the value of defining advertising. The

statement, “It is extremely important to define what this communication discipline is about.

So advertising professionals and academics will be able to develop strong criteria about its

limits, its roles, where, why, when and how it should be used” achieved 85% consensus (88%

industry/82% academics) in the US and Canada, 78% (78/77%) in Asia-Pacific/South

America and a considerably lower 35% (30/40%) in UK/Europe/South Africa. Therefore, the

value of defining advertising was deemed less important in the UK/Europe/South Africa

region. The importance of a clear definition in forging operational criteria was less important

to industry (64%) than academics (79%). However, it was far less important to both

academics and industry in the UK/Europe/South Africa. Academics and industry in all other

regions achieved consensus. This would be an area worth exploring with further research.

IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION

By using MacInnis’ (2011) four evaluative criteria to refine marketing domains, this

paper began by demonstrating the need for a revised definition of advertising. Through the

subsequent research and analysis, it has identified advantages and insights from the proposed

30
definition, and maintained parsimony. These are now discussed by considering their

implications for theory and practice and avenues for future research.

Implications for Theory

The new definition offers a stronger conceptualization of advertising, including key

dimensions that describe the construct and its boundaries, aligning it with both industry

practice and research currently appearing in advertising journals. This provides greater clarity

for theory building, investigating the scope, context and even methodologies of advertising

research. It also defines it as a legal concept that can be enacted by government, the legal

system or for self-regulation.

Equally important for research and the construction of theory frameworks is the fact

that this definition is international, replacing a predecessor that was US-centric, created by

US practitioners and academics for a US market.

Finally, the new definition also has important consequences for what we teach. It

means that we should not only teach media planning, but an understanding of owned and

earned media. It also highlights the importance of exploring consumer response to

advertising, not just as a behaviour, but as a cognitive or affective response or even a

customer journey. Potentially, this may require a rethinking of the units that we teach.

Implications for Education

Just as “the law is the floor” and a definition is important for defining a concept in

law, it is equally important in education. How can a discipline be taught if it can not be

defined and separated from, for example, a Public Relations course? Those boundaries define

the theories and constructs being taught and the subjects that build the degree. They delineate

the academic territory and perhaps reflect faculty expertise and research endeavours. The

31
proposed definition could impact curriculum by requiring the broadening of media strategies

from “paid” to include consideration of owned and earned media. It also may encourage the

exploration of effect in terms of emotion, cognition, and behaviour, and consider the timing

of this impact beyond immediate reaction.

The other implication for education is that many of the leading textbooks contain

dated definitions. It is important that textbook authors also reimagine advertising and include

definitions that more adequately explain its evolution. As textbook definitions often become

in-class understanding, the importance of keeping definitions up-to-date and reflective of

theory and practice is essential.

Implications for Practice

While the new definition offers alignment and advantage, it also raises four important

implications for practice.

1. Definition creep. This new definition of advertising expands the scope of Richards

and Curran (2002) and reflects practice, creeping into such public relations

strongholds as owned and earned media. Definition creep is also evident in public

relations. While the earliest definitions of public relations focused on aspects of

practice, such as press agentry and publicity, the Public Relations Society of America

(PRSA, 2015) defines the discipline as, “a strategic communication process that

builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics.”

Further, in a citation study of Public Relations articles, Pasadeos et al (2010) conclude

that the field has expanded, with a concerted increase in research and a broader scope

with topics such as new technologies and global studies. Therefore, the proposed

definition of advertising while broader is also in line with the way that other

marketing communication disciplines are defining themselves.

32
 2. By expanding the boundaries of advertising to include owned and earned media, this

definition addresses the broader operational scope of advertising agencies globally. In

recent years, advertising agencies have undertaken a number of additional services for

their clients from data and analytics to creating and producing content, developing

search strategies and community management. Their practice and their remuneration

has shifted beyond paid advertising alone.

3. Many SROs have also expanded their remit in terms of what they define as

advertising. For example, in Australia, the Advertising Standards Bureau (2016)

regulates over “advertising or marketing communications … over which the

advertiser or marketer has a reasonable degree of control”. This new definition could

provide a global benchmark as to what could be regulated by SROs.

4. The final implication is the consistency of the definition globally. With no major

differences between the three different global regions in any of the interpretations, it

suggests that a global definition of advertising is possible and necessary.

While this panel recruited the leading industry experts and practitioners across the

world it may not represent the more typical academic or practitioner view, which could be

gathered through a broader survey of industry and academia. However, talking to advertising

thinkers and leaders was thought a necessary first step. Similarly, the definition did show

some differences between academics and industry and across regions, which again could be

pursued in a broader study. Also of interest would be further research which explored any

difference in interpretation between agencies and advertisers.

In conclusion, this study should send a wake-up call to all those who still define

advertising using descriptors such as paid only, non-personal, and mass-media. And

especially to textbook authors, one of whom still uses a 1965 citation for their definition of

33
advertising. This is not the 1990s or even 2002. In an industry such as advertising, which has

always (even since the printing press) been shaped by technology, change is not only

inevitable but accelerating.

It is equally irresponsibly to define the term too broadly, as a motherhood definition

does little to delineate the scope of the discipline for professional associations or educational

institutions. Further, a tighter, operational definition of advertising is necessary for

governments and regulators. Thus, it is important to not only incorporate incremental change

into our practice, our research and our teaching, but also to reflect change in a way that

defines our discipline.

And finally, this study comes with an invitation to replicate. What defined advertising

in 2002, no longer describes it today. And what we describe today may not apply in 5 or 10

years’ time. But hopefully the thing that really defines our discipline is the willingness to use

change and technology as a lever to optimize the practice, research, and teaching of

advertising.

REFERENCES

ADVERTISING ASSOCIATION (AA) United Kingdom. “Advertising Pays 3: The value of

advertising to the UK’s culture, media and sport.” Retrieved September 13, 2015, from
http://www.adassoc.org.uk/publications/advertising-pays/.

ADVERTISING STANDARDS BUREAU (ASB). “What is advertising or marketing

communication?” Retrieved November 1, 2016, from
https://adstandards.com.au/products-issues/what-advertising-or-marketing-
communication

AMERICAN MARKETING ASSOCIATION (AMA). (2013).

https://www.ama.org/Pages/default.aspx Retrieved September 13, 2015.

ALTMAN, D. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London: Chapman and Hall, 1991.

Australian Media Economy Report. Magna Global: Australia, 2014.

34
BENNETT, P. D. AMA Dictionary of Marketing Terms, 2nd ed. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC
Business Books, 1995.

CAMPBELL, C., J. COHEN, and J. MA. “Advertisements Just Aren’t Advertisements Anymore:
A New Typology for Evolving Forms of Online Advertising.” Journal of Advertising
Research, 54, 1 (2014): 7-10.
CLIFT, J. “World Federation of Advertisers: Global Advertising Spend and Economic
Outlook 2015-2016.” Retrieved September 13, 2015 from
https://www.warc.com/Search?Sort=(Default)&q=WFA+Global+Marketer+Week+201
5%3a+Global+advertising+spend+%26+economic+outlook%2c+2015-
2016&RecordsPerPage=25
DAHLEN, M. and S. ROSENGREN. “If Advertising Won’t Die, What Will It Be? Toward a
Working Definition of Advertising.” Journal of Advertising, 45, 3 (2016): 334-345.
DALKEY, N. and O. HEMLER. “An Experimental Application of the Delphi Method to the Use
of Experts.” Management Science, 9, 3 (1963): 458-67.
DAVIS, J. Advertising Research: Theory and Practice. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1997.
DICKINSON-DELAPORTE, S. and G. KERR. “Agency-Generated Research of Consumer-
Generated Content: The Risks, Best Practices and Ethics.” Journal of Advertising
Research, 54, 4 (2014): 469-78.

DELBECQ, A., A. VAN DE VEN and D. GUSTAFSON. Group Techniques for Program Planning:
A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi Processes. Glenview, IL: Scott, Forseman and
Company, 1975.

EL-MURAD, J. and D. WEST. “The Definition and Measurement of Creativity: What Do We

Know?” Journal of Advertising Research, 44, 2 (2004): 2-17.

FABER, R. “Peeking Under the Curtain and Over the Horizon: The Reflections of Another
Former Editor.” Journal of Advertising, 44, 3 (2015), 289-95.

FABER, R. “A Glance Backward and the View Ahead.” Journal of Advertising, 31, 4 (2002):
preceding pv-vii.

GUPTA, U. and R. CLARKE. “Theory and Applications of the Delphi Technique: A

Bibliography (1975-1994).” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 53 (1996):
185-211.

35
HYMAN, M. “Deception in Advertising: A Proposed Complex of Definitions for
Researchers, Lawyers, and Regulators.” International Journal of Advertising, Volume
9, 3 (1990): 259-270.
HUH, J. “Comment: Advertising Won’t Die, But Defining it will Continue to be
Challenging.” Journal of Advertising, 45, 3 (2016): 356-358.
KELLEY, C. “Assessing the Trends and Challenges of Teaching Marketing Abroad: A Delphi
Approach.” Journal of Marketing Education, 29, 3 (2007): 201-209.

KERR, G., D. SCHULTZ and I. LINGS. “Someone Should Do Something: Replication and an
Agenda for Collective Action.” Journal of Advertising, 45, 1 (2016): 4-12.

KERR, G., K. MORTIMER, S. DICKINSON and D. WALLER. “Buy, Boycott or Blog: Exploring
Online Consumer Power to Share, Discuss and Distribute Controversial Advertising
Messages.” European Journal of Marketing, 45, 11/12 (2012): 469-78.
KERR, G., B. PROUD, L. KELLY, J. FULLERTON and K. MORTIMER. “We are the Future: A
Special Topic Session from the Students of the World.” American Academy of
Advertising Conference, Brisbane, Australia, 2011.
KERR, G. “Apples, Oranges and Fruit Salad: A Delphi Study of the IMC Educational Mix.”
Journal of Marketing Communications, 15, 2 (2009): 119-37.

LARRECHE, J.-C. and D. MONTGOMERY, “A Framework for the Comparison of Marketing

Models: A Delphi Study.” Journal of Marketing Research, 14 (1977): 487-98.

LINSTONE, H. and M. TUROFF. The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. Reading,
Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1975.
MACINNIS, D. “A Framework for Conceptual Contributions in Marketing.”
Journal of Marketing, 75, 4 (2011): 136-154.
MCMILLAN, S. J. “A Four-Part Model of Cyber-Interactivity: Some Cyber-Places are More
Interactive than Others.” New Media and Society, 4, 2 (2002): 271–291
OKAZAKI, S., B. MUELLER and R. TAYLOR. “Measuring Soft-sell Versus Hard Sell
Advertising Appeals.” Journal of Advertising, 39, 2 (2010): 5-20.
PASADEOS, Y., BERGER, B. and RENFRO, B. (2010). Public relations as a maturing
discipline: An update on research networks. Journal of Public Relations Research,
22(2), 136–158. doi:10.1080/10627261003601390
PUBLIC RELATIONS SOCIETY OF AMERICA (PRSA) https://www. prsa.org, Retrieved
September 13, 2015.

36
RICHARDS, J. and C. CURRAN. “Oracles on Advertising: Searching for a Definition.” Journal
of Advertising, 31, 2 (2002): 63-77.

ROWE, G., G. WRIGHT, and A. MCCOLL. “Judgment Change during Delphi-Like Procedures:
The Role of Majority Influence, Expertise, and Confidence.” Technological
Forecasting & Social Change, 72, 4 (2005): 377-399.

ROWE, G. and G. WRIGHT. “The Delphi Technique as a Forecasting Tool: An Integration of

extant knowledge and the development of priorities for a new research agenda.”
International Journal of Forecasting 27, 1 (2011): 377-399.

ROWE, G. and G. WRIGHT. “The Delphi Technique as a Forecasting Tool: Issues and
Analysis.” International Journal of Forecasting 15 (1999): 353-375.

SCHULTZ, D. “The Future of Advertising or Whatever We’re Going to Call It.” Journal of
Advertising, 45, 3 (2016): 276-285.

SHAVER, M. A. AND SOONTAE AN (EDS.). The Global Advertising Regulation Handbook, New
York, NY: Routledge, 2014.

STUHLFAUT, M. and K. WINDELS. “Altered states: The effects of media and technology
on the creative process in advertising agencies.” Journal of Marketing
Communications, 25, 1 (2019): 1-27.

STATISTA “Ad Spend Growth 2016-2017” (2017) accessed from

https://www.statista.com/statistics/276805/global-advertising-market-forecast/

TAYLOR, R. and L. JUDD. “Delphi Forecasting.” In Tourism Marketing and Management

Handbook, S. Wit and L. Mouthinho eds. London: Prentice Hall, 1994.

WINKLER, J. and R. MOSER. “Biases in future-oriented Delphi studies: A cognitive

perspective.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 101 (2016): 63-76.

37