You are on page 1of 19


Consumer Response in the New Free Market Economies of Central and Eastern Europe The Case of the Czech Republic
Elena S. Millan and Banwari Mittal ABSTRACT: This study investigates the structure of consumer beliefs and attitudes toward advertising in a leading-edge, new market economy of Central and Eastern Europethe Czech Republic. Based on a national sample, Czech consumers beliefs about advertisings informational value and its role in the nations economy explained their attitudes toward advertising significantly. Our data also revealed five consumer segments ranging from enthusiasts to severe critics. Segments with unfavorable attitudes saw advertising as being short on information and long on falsity. As such, the studys findings signal a need to steer the practice of advertising toward more product information, truth, and ethical standards. The first of its kind in Central and Eastern Europe, the study underscores the need to map consumer attitudes in other Central and Eastern European nations, and toward that agenda, it provides a framework for measurement of consumer belief profiles and identification of diverse attitude segments.

Modern advertising practices were introduced in Central and Eastern European countries relatively recently. Under communist rule, the role of advertising was limited, as consumer demand for goods outstripped their supply. Moreover, hailed in the West as a capitalistic virtue, as an engine of free market economy (Mittal 1994, p. 35), advertising was viewed by communist rulers as something alien to their system of central planning. With the transition to a market economy, however, local and foreign companies alike introduced Western advertising methods to promote their goods, thus fundamentally changing the advertising landscape. Today, in Central and Eastern Europe, television programs are generously interspersed with commercials, glossy magazines show colorful images of celebrities endorsing products, and billboards flash new brand names and logos. This barrage of commercial messages constitutes a new life experience for the newly liberated consumers of the former Soviet bloc. How are consumers reacting to this flood of commercial messages? Do they see this new advertising landscape as a good thing, opening the door to the new marketplace, or instead as an evil thing, presenting images of a false paradise? The Czech Republic, the site of the present study, is one of the most advanced economies in Central and Eastern Europe. The per capita gross domestic product (GDP), based on purchasing power parity for the Czech Republic, is 24,236

at current international dollars (CI$)the second highest (after Slovenia) in Central and Eastern Europe (average GDP of CI$14,698) (IMF 2008). It also has the second-highest human development index (HDI) among the countries from the region (.903), second to Slovenia (UNDP 2009). There has been an advertising boom in the Czech Republic since the start of market reforms, with advertising expenditures rising to CZK19 billion in 2006, up 217% from 1995, at current prices (Trends in Advertising Expenditure 2007). The present study of Czech consumers has three goals. First, we examine whether Czech consumers, who have been exposed to free market advertising practices only since 1989, hold a favorable and welcoming view of advertising, or whether, instead, they dislike or even oppose advertising. Second, we seek to understand these attitudes in terms of Czechs beliefs about advertisingwhat they believe advertising does or does not do for them. Third, acknowledging that not all consumers react in the same way to new market phenomena, we seek to identify distinct attitudinal segments among the Czechs. To measure these beliefs and attitudes, we use a model developed in the United States (Pollay and Mittal 1993) and test its applicability to a new market economy of Central Europe. Because advertising in this region is still evolving, the need to understand consumer reactions at a theoretical levelin terms of the underlying belief structure and its impact on general attitude toward advertisingis all the more important.

Elena S. Millan (D.Phil., University of Oxford) is a lecturer in the Department of Food Economics and Marketing, University of Reading. Banwari Mittal (Ph.D., University of Pittsburgh) is a professor in the Department of Marketing, Northern Kentucky University.

The authors thank Craig Andrews, Professor and the Charles H. Kellstadt Chair in Marketing at Marquette University, and Jir= Mike, CEO of the Czech Association of Communication Agencies, for helpful comments.
Journal of Advertising, vol. 39, no. 3 (Fall 2010), pp. 8198. 2010 American Academy of Advertising. All rights reserved. ISSN 0091-3367 / 2010 $9.50 + 0.00. DOI 10.2753/JOA0091-3367390300


The Journal of Advertising

ADVERTISING LANDSCAPE IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC Consumer advertising as it is known in the advanced market economies did not exist in the Czech Republic (and in other Central and Eastern European countries) before 1989. During the years of central planning, consumer demand chronically exceeded supply, and consumerist cravings were held in contempt by the communist regime. Anticonsumerist propaganda was embedded in the ideological discourse throughout the 1970s and 1980s (Slater 1990). All media were state-owned, and advertising was allowed mainly to promote state or cooperative department stores, to inform consumers about the availability of new types of products, and to promote cultural and sporting events (C ulk 2004). + Under communist rule, a common view held by Czech consumers was that if a product was advertised, it was in oversupply and of poor quality (Elliott 1992). With the end of the socialist system, the advertising landscape changed radically. The advent of market economy accelerated the development of the fledgling Czech advertising industry. Multinational advertising agencies (e.g., Young & Rubicam, Leo Burnett Advertising, and Mark BBDO) were quick to enter the Czech market, often following the entry of their large international clients. The monopoly of the statecontrolled press, radio, and television was broken, and private media were established in the 1990s (BBC 2010). Extant Research on Central and Eastern European Advertising Advertising research for the region has been scant and has focused mainly on counting the ad content in various media. A few studies have focused on assessing the relative persuasiveness of different appeal types (De Pelsmacker and Geuens 1998; Koudelova and Whitelock 2001; Taylor, Bonner, and Dolezal 2002; van Herpen et al. 2000). Directly focusing on attitudes toward advertising are two studies on Russian consumers, separated by more than a decade. In the first of these studies, Andrews, Durvasula, and Netemeyer (1994) found that Russian consumers held a more positive overall attitude toward advertising than U.S. consumers (5.92 versus 5.36 on a seven-point scale). Back then, Russian society had barely begun its move toward a market economy, and consumers were understandably welcoming of the new tools of marketing, including advertising. But in the latter of the two studies (Wells, Van Auken, and Ritchie 2007), Russian attitudes had turned more negative (mean 3.9 on the seven-point bad-good scale). These findings are in line with Pierces (1971) argument that consumer attitudes toward advertising become more negative as a country moves from an underdeveloped to a developing to a developed economy stage, a theme cor-

roborated by La Ferle and Lee (2002), who found consumer attitudes in China (a country with low economic development) to be more positive than U.S. attitudes. For Russia, the reason for the deteriorating consumer ad attitudes seems to be the unmet expectations of the middle class (Wells and Van Auken 2006; Wells, Van Auken, and Ritchie 2007). One recent study, focused on the Czech Republic, examined the perceived role of advertising in consumer decision making and found that Czech consumers viewed advertising to be an unimportant factor in their clothing purchases (Millan 2008). Beyond these empirical studies, some writers report, anecdotally, on the prevalent reactions in these new economies. It has been observed for Hungary, for example, that as advertising expenditures soared, consumers have learned to watch but not always believe what they see (Beck 1999, p. 14). Observations such as these underscore the need to empirically assess and understand attitudes toward and beliefs about the role of advertising in Central and Eastern Europeans lives as consumers. THEORY Models of Consumer Beliefs and Attitudes Toward Advertising Attitude toward advertising has been defined as a learned predisposition to respond in a consistently favorable or unfavorable manner to advertising in general (MacKenzie and Lutz 1989, pp. 5354). Extant marketing literature makes a distinction between attitudes and beliefs. Whereas attitudes refer to consumers overall evaluation of and affection for an object, beliefs link an object to specific attributes (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980; Andrews, Durvasula, and Netemeyer 1994). A key task is to measure these beliefs. Two measures of ad beliefs have been prevalent in the literature. The first, advanced by Bauer and Greyser (1968), is a two-dimensional measure of advertising beliefs, tapping into the social and economic effects of advertising. The second, proposed by Sandage and Leckenby (1980), is also a two-factor measure, tapping into the consumer view of advertising as an institution and as an instrument. While both measures have been employed in subsequent studies, the former has spawned an expanded model of advertising beliefs, by Pollay and Mittal (1993), described below. Building on the work of Bauer and Greyser (1968) and others, Pollay and Mittal (1993) developed a more comprehensive model of consumer advertising beliefs, consisting of seven belief factors. Three of these capture personal benefits of advertising: advertising provides product information, offers social image associations, and gives hedonic pleasure (i.e., entertains). Four are related to societal consequences, one of which is positive (namely, that advertising is good for the

Fall 2010


FIGURE 1 The Seven Belief Factor Model of Consumer Attitudes Toward Advertising

economy) and three are negative (namely, that it spreads materialism, corrupts our values, and promotes falsity/no sense). In various factor analyses, Pollay and Mittal found the measures to, by and large, cohere and load on their intended factors. They also found that the three personal factors were mutually distinct; however, among the four societal factors, materialism and value corruption merged into a single factor, yielding a six-factor belief model. Thus, of interest to the present study is the question of whether the original or a modified factor structure holds in the Czech context; in particular, whether Czech consumers also distinguish the personal benefits of advertising from its societal consequences. Pollay and Mittals conceptual model is shown in Figure 1 and is used here to frame our own measurement and analyses. Czech Advertising Beliefs and Attitudes: Hypotheses Development Attitude Toward Advertising Czech attitudes toward advertising have to be understood against the backdrop of their attitudes toward the market reforms per se. At the onset of market economy, consumer attitudes toward both the market and advertising were likely to have been positive. Although communist propaganda had labeled everything in the West bad, people believed the opposite and were therefore eager to embrace everything from the West, especially the consumerist aspects of life (C ulk + 1995). Vclav Klaus, prime minister of the Czech Republic from 1992 to 1997, was eager to bring accelerated economic prosperity by propagating the ideology of free market commercialism: Business is what matters and morals are irrelevant in business, where the market principles rule (quoted in Hraba 2001). The launch of market reforms might have led

to initial enthusiasm, but the ensuing harsh economic reality of unfulfilled hopes might have led consumers to withhold their enthusiasm or even lose it. With the introduction of the market model of economic development, employment opportunities shifted dramatically from agriculture and rural sectors to urban and services sectors (i.e., from the working to the professional class), creating a growing base of an economically insecure population. Aggregate unemployment rates averaged 2.5% between 1991 and 1996, but rose to 9.9% in 2004, and remained relatively high at 6.8% in 2008 (Czech Government Report 2008). Scholars have argued that economic hardships produce a loss of peoples trust in democracy and free markets (Rose and Haerpfer 1998). Five national surveys conducted by the Czech Academy of Sciences between 1991 and 1998 confirmed that average promarket support declined continually after 1992 (Hraba 2001). Since advertising is the most visible tool of marketing, we expect this declining support to also affect consumer attitudes toward advertising. Thus, we believe that two opposite sociopolitical factors will determine Czech attitudes toward advertising. On the one hand, Czech consumers will see advertising as an agent of the new liberal economy, opening the gates to a marketplace of new goods hitherto unavailable under the era of a centrally planned economy. On the other hand, having witnessed decades of propaganda under communist rule, Czech consumers may be expected to harbor skepticism toward all advertising, new or old, foreign or domestic. Moreover, with economic hardship experienced by a large portion of the population, initial consumer enthusiasm for the free market economy is likely to have begun to sour. Advertising sells a new way of life, but as long as the desired goods remain out of the reach of many consumers, advertising is likely to feed social tensions and frustrations (Slater 1990). These two contradictory


The Journal of Advertising

influences suggest that overall Czech consumer attitudes toward advertising will be in the middle, neither very positive nor very negative. Thus, H1: Czech consumers attitudes toward advertising will be, on average, in the middle range. Advertising Beliefs Structure An important question relating to the advertising belief structure is whether the seven belief factors proposed by Pollay and Mittal (1993) will emerge as independent beliefs for Czech consumers. Underlying the presence of the seven-factor structure of ad beliefs is the assumption that consumers are able to process ad messages analytically, paying attention to and reflecting on their multiple facets. This assumption is likely to be less reflective of Czech consumers for two reasons: main motivational focus on functional benefits, as opposed to symbolic benefits, and lack of prior cognitive framework to process symbolic elements of commercial messages. First, the tradeoff between serving a functional need and a symbolic need is likely to be less salient to consumers in still-evolving market economies. Several years into the transition to capitalism, consumer behavior in these economies is still influenced by the relatively low (compared with Western standards) consumer purchasing power. As some prior related research has shown (e.g., Hill and Gaines 2007), low purchasing power keeps consumers motivated to appraise products for their core functional benefits rather than to aspire for any symbolic benefits. Anticonsumerist sentiments and cultural values embedded in pre-1989 conditions such as thrift, moderation, frugality, and contentment with a simple way of living are also likely to keep subdued peoples interest in symbolic consumption (see Belk 1988; Hovet, Gosling, and Mudranincova 2005). Accordingly, the distinction between information and social role/image beliefs is less likely to be present in the salient choice criteria of Czech consumers. Second, when exposed to a new product (and commercial messages about it), the audience attention tends to focus, naturally, on the core form and benefits of the stimulus, to the exclusion of symbolic trappings. According to prior research in semiotics (symbolic elements of a stimulus), discerning and interpreting these symbolic elements require prior cognitive learning, which comes with prior exposures to those signs in those specific contexts (Mick 1986). It has been suggested that consumers in these new economies lack sufficient knowledge of the foreign brands heritage, and, consequently, they tend to put their trust in the product and not the brand and the images that come with it (Crain 2006; Keller and Moorthi 2003). In effect then, on the whole, Czech consumers are likely to lack both the motivation (no pressing need yet for symbolic benefits) and the ability (i.e., lack of the necessary prior cogni-

tive framework) to discern and decode the symbolic messages in advertising. Therefore, H2a: Czech consumers are likely not to discriminate between the informational benefits and the social role and image aspects of advertising. Similar lack of discrimination is likely to be found between the materialism and value corruption factors. These two belief factors were not discriminated even in the benchmark U.S. study of Pollay and Mittal (1993) as well as in other U.S. studies (e.g., Korgaonkar, Karson, and Akaah 1997). Indeed, different social effects of advertising have not been distinguished in a large body of early as well as more recent research (e.g., Dvila and Rojas-Mndez 2001; Durvasula, Lysonski, and Mehta 1999; Greyser and Bauer 1966; La Ferle and Lee 2002; Larkin 1977). Given the relatively early stage in Czechs experience with and exposure to modern advertising (which leads to less analytical processing), and the absence of a wide public debate on the possible adverse societal influences of the market-based advertising methods and practices, lack of separation between the negative effects of materialism and value corruption is likely to prevail among Czech consumers. Therefore, H2b: Czech consumers are likely not to discriminate between the materialism and value corruption factors. It has been suggested that the Czechs notorious pessimism may be behind their general skepticism toward brand claims (Taylor, Bonner, and Dolezal 2002). Thus, Czech consumers would be especially adept at discerning the falsity effects of advertising. Another characteristic of the Czech nation is its vejk-like sense of humor, cultivated during the historical discontinuities the country has lived through, which helped the nation to survive hundreds of years of foreign domination (Brodsk 2000). In light of this fact, it is not surprising that Czechs appear to be appreciative of the entertainment value of advertising (Taylor, Bonner, and Dolezal 2002). As to the good-for-the-economy factor, the very idea of an emerging market economy is that the Western-style abundant availability of goods brings economic prosperity to nations and people. Long yearning for the fruits of the free market economy, Czechs are unlikely to discard this belief now that the free market economy along with its most visible instrument (namely, advertising) is before them. Therefore, H2c: Czech consumers will recognize hedonic value as a distinct belief factor. H2d: Czech consumers will recognize falsity/no sense as a distinct belief factor. H2e: Czech consumers will recognize good-for-the-economy as a distinct belief factor.

Fall 2010


The Role of Beliefs in Explaining Attitude Toward Advertising Regarding the role of the seven belief factors in explaining consumers overall attitude toward advertising, our expectations are as follows. Czech consumers, who are relatively new to Western-style advertising and, in fact, to the market-based economic system, are likely to be interested in the newly available products and in understanding their features and benefits. Thus, the information content of advertising will be seen as fulfilling their need for product information. Congruent with the findings of previous studies (e.g., Petrovici and Marinov 2007; Shavitt, Lowrey, and Haefner 1998), we expect the Czech consumers perception of the informativeness of advertising to contribute positively to their overall attitude toward advertising. In the Czech context, however, we expect the product information factor not only to be a contributor, but to be the dominant factor. This is because most consumers facing a new marketplace and a new array of products are likely, first and foremost, to desire to understand those products and, accordingly, to extract from advertising objective information about the promoted products. This logic is in line with the existing empirical evidence that the Czechs tend to use commercials primarily for gaining product-related knowledge. Next, the three societal factors (falsity, materialism, and value corruption) are likely to make consumer attitudes toward advertising less favorable. First, if advertisements are seen as false or nonsensical, this perceived falsity is likely to frustrate consumers desire to learn about products and is therefore going to produce a dislike of advertising. Likewise, because Czechs are still less affluent compared to consumers in Western countries, they tend to be largely focused on finding inexpensive or value-for-money products rather than luxury goods. Limited disposable incomes, uncertainties about individual financial situations, anticonsumerist outlooks fed by years of communist propaganda, and past experiences with shortages and unsophisticated lifestyles all intermingle in shaping the mind-set of contemporary Czech consumers (see Hovet, Mudranincov, and Vykoukal 2004). Therefore, advertisements that are seen to promote indulgence and materialism are likely to add to their frustration. Hence, falsity, materialism, and value corruption dimensions are likely to affect consumers overall attitudes negatively, with their influence only next to the positive influence of information value. Therefore, H3a: The product information factor will be the strongest predictor among all belief factors in explaining Czechs overall attitude toward advertising. H3b: The falsity, materialism, and value corruption factors will collectively explain a significant portion of variance in Czechs overall attitude toward advertising. The influence of the social image factor is likely to be subsumed in the role of the product information factor. This is

because the social image factor may not be discerned (as per H2a), which is a necessary condition for any factor to play a role in subsequent attitude formation. If discriminated, its role is likely to be less important, especially compared to the role of product information. This notion derives from the greater relevance of product information (than the social role and imagery) to the Czech, and for that matter Central and Eastern European, consumers, which is underpinned by several factors such as the influx of previously unknown products and brands, the relatively limited exposure to commercial advertising, and the general lack of previous experiences with decoding ad messages and playing with brand and lifestyle imagery, as well as the still greater importance of the product than the brand. Also relevant here is the role of uncertainty avoidance as a cultural trait. The high uncertainty avoidance tendencies fed by the socialist policies and practices and the financial, health, and other risks associated with purchasing unknown products may also play a role. It has been argued that, motivated by risk aversion and problem solving, consumers in high uncertainty avoidance cultures, among which the Czech Republic (see Hofstede 2001) ranks high, may exhibit a stronger preference for tangible product attributes, since the tangible attributes can unambiguously solve or prevent a problem (see Millan, De Pelsmacker, and Wright 2010). As to the role of the hedonic factor, it is likely to be positive and substantial, independent of the role of the other factors. Whereas the role of humor on brand attitude is more complex, being contingent on factors such as prior brand attitude and congruence with the brand message (see Chattopadhyay and Basu 1990), its role in inducing positive mood and likability for the source is affirmed by prior research (e.g., De Pelsmacker and Geuens 1998; Duncan and Nelson 1985; Moran 1996; Weinberger and Gulas 1992). Sources include the specific humor-enactor in the ad as well as the ad itself, and indeed, in the body of literature on this topic, the hedonic factors positive link to general attitudes toward advertising is nearly universal (e.g., Shavitt, Lowrey, and Haefner 1998). This logic alongside Taylor, Bonner, and Dolezals finding that humor and clever creative approaches are a very important aspect of advertising in the Czech Republic (2002, p. 143) suggests that if advertising is seen as entertaining, the humor-loving Czechs are likely to be more favorably inclined toward it. Finally, we expect the good-for-the-economy factor to have a weak effect on Czechs overall attitude toward advertising. We expect Czech consumers to recognize this effect because a better economy is the very raison d tre for why consumers in controlled polity have been eager for liberation; accordingly, the link of the Western-style marketing (and its visible instrument, advertising) to ensuing economic benefits to society is likely to be grasped by these consumers. However, the personal benefits of a products use are ostensibly presented in most ads, whereas societal benefits are not. The latter require


The Journal of Advertising

inference making about the macro effects of advertising, and such inferences are less accessible to lay consumers (e.g., Simmons and Johar 1994). New to the immensely expanded world of goods in the new market economy, Czech consumers are likely to be mostly preoccupied with contemplating and assessing products for their own consumption, while giving less thought to the advertisings effect, or lack of it, on the national economy. Therefore, H3c: In explaining Czech consumers attitudes toward advertising, the social role and image factor will play a significantly lesser role than the information factor. H3d: The hedonic factor will significantly explain Czech consumers attitudes toward advertising. H3e: The good-for-the-economy factor will significantly explain Czech consumers attitudes toward advertising, though to a lesser extent than will the information factor. Attitudinal Segments in the Population As is true of any society, Czech society is hardly uniform. Across the population, income, educational levels, and age structures differ, as do traditional/modern value orientation and outlook toward westernization of the economy. Naturally, some Czechs are open and welcoming of the new economy and its attendant marketing activities. For others, the market reforms are threatening their well-being, and they are anxious and skeptical, if not hostile. Accordingly, we expect the existence of consumer segments that will range from supportive to critical, as well as some with ambivalent belief profiles. Such segments were found in prior studies in the United States (Korgaonkar, Karson, and Akaah 1997; Pollay and Mittal 1993). In the present study, we seek to identify these consumer segments. We also seek to examine whether and how age, income, and other demographics might be associated with Czechs view of advertising. METHOD Sample The present study was designed as a cross-sectional survey of consumers in the Czech Republic. The questionnaire, designed for this study, was incorporated in a regular omnibus study by an international market research agency. The agency secures nationwide coverage through a quota sampling procedure, with region, size of residence, gender, age, and education used as quota controls. Some 100 field investigators conducted faceto-face interviewsmarking consumers verbal responses on paper questionnairesat the respondents premises in both urban and rural areas. Five hundred forty-one interviews were conducted, of which 26 had missing data, yielding 515 us-

able questionnaires. The demographic profile of the sample matches closely that of the studied national population. The respondents age ranged between 15 and 69 years (M = 39 years). Male and female respondents were nearly equally represented in the sample (49.1% and 50.9%, respectively; the national proportion for males is 49.9%). Nineteen percent had completed primary education, 39.8% vocational, 32.4% secondary, and only 8.7% college/university education (differences with national education statistics ranged between 1.2% and 1.8%). Regarding age, people ages 3039 were slightly overrepresented (difference 3.5%), and people ages 6069 were slightly underrepresented (difference 3.4%) in the sample. Questionnaire Pollay and Mittals model was used as the measurement framework for the present study. The measures of all belief types employed by Pollay and Mittal were included (scales shown in Table 1). Global attitudes were captured with two items: Overall, I consider advertising a good thing and My general opinion of advertising is unfavorable (reverse scored). All responses were obtained on five-point strongly disagree (1)/ strongly agree (5) Likert scales. Demographic information on the respondents sex, age, education, household income, and size of residence was also collected. The questionnaire was prepared in English and validated by a back-translation (English to Czech to English) procedure, as prescribed by Brislin (1970). RESULTS Advertising Beliefs and Attitudes Profile Table 1 presents belief and global attitude scores for the sample as a whole. This table also reports Cronbachs a reliabilities, three of which (out of the total of seven reported) are below the desired value of .70 (.49, .66, and .66). Although these values are comparable to those in the Pollay and Mittal (1993) study (their lowest is .47), readers should note the less-than-desirable reliabilities for some of the measured beliefs. Standard deviations of all belief items show sufficient heterogeneity among respondent beliefs. Also, the data show that all the belief factors received mid-range mean ratings (range 2.373.70). Based on a one-sample t-test, the mean of global advertising attitude (which is 2.82) was found to be significantly different from a mean of 2 (t = 17.32, p < 0.001, two-tailed), as well as a mean of 4 (t = 25.10, p < 0.001, two-tailed). Thus, H1 was supported. To identify the factor structure of measured beliefs, we estimated a series of models via confirmatory factor analyses (CFA), using Amos 16 software. We first used a split-half

Fall 2010


cross-validation procedure for all CFA analyses; because we obtained identical results for the two split-halves, we chose to merge back the two split-halves and rerun all the CFAs for the entire sample. We began the CFA procedures (on split-halves and then on the entire sample) with a seven-factor model as originally proposed by Pollay and Mittal; but to successfully estimate it, we needed to merge materialism and value corruption and also, based on modification indices and theoretical rationale, to free one cross loading (see the rationale in the Appendix). The final six-factor model we successfully estimated had a satisfactory fit to data: 2(173) = 467.94 ( p < 0.001), CMIN/DF = 2.70, goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = .920, adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) = .893, standardized root mean square residual (RMR) = .055, comparative fit index (CFI) = .914, and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .058. All factor loadings were significant at the .05 level. Correlations among factors, estimated from this CFA and presented in Table 2, show a pattern of high values (above .65) among the three personal benefit factors and, likewise, among the two negative societal consequences (.82); in comparison, and as would be expected, the cross correlations among the two sets of factors are much lower (.28 to .58, see the rectangle). The highest correlation (.95) is among the product information and social image factors. The pattern of correlations (conversely, discrimination) among factors is the subject of our hypotheses and is therefore examined more formally below. We used the six-factor model (Model 1) as the basis to test our hypotheses about factor discrimination. To test H2a, we merged the two factors: product information and social image. The resulting five-factor model (Model 2) had a satisfactory fit in terms of GFI, AGFI, standardized RMR, CFI, and RMSEA statistics, but the 2 difference test (2(5) = 22.29, p < .001) showed this model to be inferior to Model 1. To continue our test, we next estimated a new measurement model with only these two belief factors, running both a separate- and a merged-factors version. The overall fits of the two versions were, respectively, 2(8) = 9.97 ( p = .27) and 2(9) = 12.77 ( p = .17), indicating a marginally superior fit for the merged-factors model. Of the two tests, the latter is unaffected by the presence of other factors and is, therefore, a better indicator of the factor discrimination. Considering both tests together, we found some support for H2a, though marginal at best. To test H2b, we separated in the base model the materialism and value corruption factors. This model (Model 3) failed to be estimated as the solution was inadmissible. Therefore, separating materialism and value corruption makes the model misspecified, which provides support for H2b. This support was also confirmed when only these two belief factors were included in the model. Specifically, 2 values for the

TABLE 1 Czech Consumers Beliefs About Advertising

Beliefs about advertising Product information (.66) 1. Informs about brand features 2. Keeps me up-to-date 3. Provides valuable information Social role and image (.77) 4. What others are buying 5. Tells me what is in fashion 6. What would reflect me Hedonic/pleasure (.73) 7. More enjoyable than other 8. Amusing and entertaining 9. Take pleasure in recalling Good-for-the-economy (.49) 10. Helps economy 11. Not wasteful of economic resources* Materialism (.67) 12. Makes ours a materialistic society 13. Buy things not needed 14. Persuades . . . should not buy 15. Overspend . . . show off 16. Induces living in fantasy Value corruption (.56) 17. Distorts values of youth 18. Promotes undesirable values in society Falsity/no sense (.66) 19. Misleading 20. Insults intelligence 21. Presents a true picture of goods Advertising attitude (.78) Advertising is a good thing Favorable opinion of advertising M 2.83 2.83 2.63 3.03 2.48 2.54 2.51 2.37 3.01 3.13 3.23 2.68 2.67 2.73 2.62 3.35 3.40 3.70 3.47 3.09 3.09 3.08 3.21 2.95 3.27 3.13 3.03 3.64 2.82 2.83 2.80 SD .84 1.06 1.07 1.13 .88 1.07 1.10 1.03 .93 1.17 1.09 1.20 .93 1.14 1.14 .70 1.09 1.02 1.05 1.11 1.10 .86 1.07 1.01 .83 1.06 1.13 1.03 1.07 1.15 1.22

Notes: On the survey form, the items were presented in a jumbled order. All items were measured on five-point strongly disagree/strongly agree scales; higher mean scores indicate stronger agreement with the statement. Numbers in parentheses are Cronbachs as. * This item was originally worded as advertising is wasteful of resources and was later reverse coded.

separate- versus merged-factors models were, respectively, 2(13) = 14.97 ( p = .31) and 2(14) = 18.68 ( p = .18); accordingly, 2(1) = 3.71, p < .05. Next, we tested for the discrimination of the hedonic factor from product information and, separately, from social image. Starting with the base model, we merged the hedonic and product information factors (Model 4a) and found the fit worsened in the merged-factor model with a significantly poorer 2 difference (2(5) = 100.87, p < .001), indicating a better fit of the baseline model. Likewise, merging the hedonic factor with the social image factor (Model 4b) also gave a poorer fit


The Journal of Advertising TABLE 2 Correlations Among the Six Advertising Belief Factors (Based on CFA)

Advertising belief factors Product information Social role and image Hedonic/pleasure Good for the economy Materialism/value corruption Falsity/no sense Item loadings*

Product information 1 .95 .77 .86 .43 .58 .72, .70, .48

Social role and image 1 .65 .76 .30 .46 .77, .69, .72

Hedonic/ Pleasure

Good for the economy

Materialism/ value corruption

Falsity/ no sense

1 .75 .28 .49 .66, .67, .74 1 .73 .87 .54, .60 1.0 0.82 .51, .49, .60, .57, .44, .57, .64 1.0 .73, .70, .12, (.60)

Notes: For falsity/no sense, .60 is cross-loading of the third item on product information. * Item sequence corresponds to that shown in Table 1.

(2(5) = 127.43, p < .001). Thus, the distinctiveness of the hedonic factor (H2c) was supported. Next, to test whether falsity was discriminated from materialism/value corruption, we merged the two factors (Model 5a). However, Model 5a proved considerably inferior to the base model, as judged by the 2 difference (2(5) = 54.21, p < .001). Thus, falsity was discriminated from the materialism/value corruption factor, providing support for H2d. We performed one more test of discrimination. Because falsity could reflect (negatively) as well the information benefit of advertising, we merged falsity with product information (Model 5b). The fit of Model 5b was considerably worse than that of the baseline model (2(6) = 207.48, p < .001). Thus, H2d was further supported. Next, to test whether the societal benefit of good-for-theeconomy was discriminated from other factors, we merged this factor with the similarly beneficial personal factor of product information (Model 6a); next, and in a separate analysis, we merged it with materialism/value corruption (Model 6b); and, yet again, we merged it with falsity (Model 6c). In all of these subanalyses, the base model was superior. Specifically, the 2 differences for Models 6a, 6b, and 6c were, respectively, 2(5) = 41.71( p < .001), 2(5) = 106.92 ( p < .001), and 2(5) = 33.63 ( p < .001). These tests showed the discrimination of the good-for-the-economy factor from all the other factors. Thus, H2e was supported. In sum, all the belief factors were discriminated from one another except materialism and value corruption (already merged in the baseline model) and, separately, the product information and social image factors, for which we found some support in favor of the merger. Because this latter support was mixed and weak, we deem the baseline model (Model 1) to represent the best-fitting model and use it in the subsequent analyses. It is

noteworthy that this model resembles entirely (except for one item cross loading) the revised Pollay and Mittal model. The Role of Beliefs in Explaining Attitude Toward Advertising To test H3aH3e, we ran a structural equations model (SEM) with the six belief factors from the CFA used as predictor (exogenous) variables and the overall attitude toward advertising used as an endogenous variable (see Table 3, Regression A). The six belief factors together explained 87% of the variance in global attitude. The standardized regression coefficient of the product information factor was the highest (.697). Although this result indicates support for H3a, the b coefficient of social role and image is negative (.248), whereas the bi-serial correlation between global attitude and social role and image is positive (.86). The negative b coefficient reflects a suppressor effect, a result of the high interfactor correlation between product information and social role and image (f = .95). Therefore, we reran the structural model with product information and social role and image factors merged (see Table 3, Regression B). The revised model is shown in Figure 2. The five predictors explained 85.4% of the variance in global attitude. The b coefficient of the merged factor, termed here personal usefulness, was the second highest (.434) after the good-for-the-economy factor (.570); accordingly, H3a was not supported. Because good-for-the-economy and overall attitude were relatively highly correlated (r = .63), we repeated the above analyses with good-for-the-economy excluded from the list of predictors (see Table 3, Regression C). The remaining predictors still explained considerable variance (73.6%) in overall attitude, and all of them were significant. In this regression,

Fall 2010 TABLE 3 Regression of Advertising Beliefs Factors on Global Attitude ( Coefficients)
Regression A Predictors Product information Social role and image Hedonic/pleasure Materialism/value corruption Falsity/no sense Good for the economy Variance explained .697 .248 .403 .282 .285 .571 87% p .073 .519 .000 .000 .000 .000 .434* .412 .290 .294 .570 85.4% Regression B p .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .513* .452 .354 .380 73.6% Regression C p


.000 .000 .000 .000

* b coefficients of the merged personal usefulness factor (comprising product information and social role and image factors).

as hypothesized, personal usefulness had the highest b coefficient (.513). Next, to test H3b, we ran two new structural submodels, both with advertising attitude as an endogenous variable: product information was the exogenous variable in one of the submodels, whereas the materialism/value corruption and falsity factors served as exogenous variables in the other submodel. The variance explained by product information alone was 62.7%. In comparison, the variance explained by the materialism/value corruption and falsity factors was 55.3%, which is noticeably less than the former. Thus, H3b was supported. To test H3c, we ran a single-predictor structural model with advertising attitude as the endogenous variable and social role and image as the exogenous variable. The variance explained by the social role and image factor alone was 45%, which is significantly smaller than that explained by product information (62.7%); thus, support for H3c was found. As to H3d, Table 3 shows the hedonic factor to be a significant predictor of global attitude even when other copredictors are included in the model. Thus, H3d was supported. Table 3 (Regression B) also shows the good-for-the-economy factor to be a significant predictor; moreover, with other copredictors in the model, its b coefficient is the highest (.570), thus disproving H3e. Identifying Consumer Segments Based on Advertising Beliefs To uncover subpopulation variations in consumer perceptions of advertising, the six belief factors (computed as composites by averaging the constituent items) were subjected to cluster analysis using a two-stage procedure. In the first stage, we conducted hierarchical clustering with Wards algorithm and squared Euclidean distance measure of similarity. A five-cluster solution was selected on the basis of the dendogram and the distinct changes in fusion coefficients. In the second stage, we

performed a K-means cluster analysis using the centroid-centers derived from Wards method as starting values for the analysis. We used this two-stage procedure on two split-half samples in a calibration and then validation sequence, and we found very close correspondence between the cluster solutions on the two split-half samples. Specifically, the correlations between the cluster centroids of the two samples ranged between .84 and .99, and the corresponding clusters of each sample contained similar numbers of cases. This procedure attested to the stability of the cluster solutions; and as the two split-half cluster profiles resembled each other closely, we next chose to pool back the data and run the same two-stage procedure on the entire sample. A five-cluster solution was selected. Comparing Wards and K-means cluster solutions revealed that 83.7% of the cases were allocated to the same cluster by both algorithms, and the correlations between the corresponding cluster centroids were approaching 1. We used ANOVA (analysis of variance) as a test of criterion validity, and it revealed that the differences among the five clusters on attitude toward advertising were statistically significant (F = 136.88, p < .001). The clusters for the entire sample are presented in Table 4, arranged from the most favorable to the most unfavorable global attitude, and are named (the sample proportions in parentheses) enthusiasts (22.9%), ambivalent (29.3%), unbothered (14.8%), conflicted (21.9%), and severe critics (11.1%). The enthusiast segment holds the most favorable attitude toward advertising (M = 3.83), believing that advertising gives them personally useful information about the marketplace (including fashion trends) and finding it personally enjoyable. At the societal level, they perceive advertising to be good for the economy and to have no negative consequences. In effect, this segment is supportive and welcoming of advertising. The ambivalent segment is the largest in size (29.3%), comprising people who hold a neutral attitude toward advertising (M = 3.06). They score in the middle on the product information and social role and image factors, but they see


The Journal of Advertising

FIGURE 2 Estimated Model of Advertising Beliefs and Attitudes

Note: Item numbers refer to those in Table 1. The scores of item 11 are reversed.

advertising as spreading, to some extent, materialism and value corruption as well as false information; however, they do not seem to consider these as serious demerits, or at least not so serious as to neutralize the positive entertainment value

of advertising, which apparently keeps them pro-advertising, even if only marginally. The third segment, called unbothered, holds a nearly neutral attitude (M = 2.84), seeing no personal use in advertising

Fall 2010 TABLE 4 Consumer Segments by Attitudes Toward Advertising

Segments Variables Global attitude* Product information Social role and image Hedonic/pleasure Good for the economy Materialism/value corruption Falsity/no sense Percent of whole sample Enthusiasts (n = 118) 3.83 3.51 3.26 3.73 3.55 2.80 2.07 22.9 Ambivalent (n = 151) 3.06 3.02 3.03 3.29 2.79 3.35 3.26 29.3 Unbothered (n = 76) 2.84 2.44 1.81 2.49 2.90 2.84 2.44 14.8 Conflicted (n = 113) 2.18 2.20 1.91 3.00 2.09 3.68 3.71 21.9 Severe critics (n = 57) 1.32 1.64 1.39 1.49 1.40 3.82 4.31 11.1


* Segments are based only on the six belief categories. Global attitude was not used in cluster analysis.

(product information and social trends information) or finding any amusement/entertainment value. Furthermore, they feel neutral about the role of advertising for the economy (M = 2.90) and do not view advertising as having significant negative societal effects either (M = 2.84 for materialism/value corruption, and M = 2.44 for falsity/no sense). The conflicted segment views advertising as an amalgam of bad and perhaps some good. With overall negative attitude (M = 2.18), its constituents do not perceive advertising to be a useful provider of marketplace information or to bring any value to the economy either. Instead, they tend to see it as promoting materialism and corrupting values (M = 3.68) and advancing falsity/no sense as well (M = 3.71). However, they do find advertising somewhat entertaining. The last segment, severe critics, does not see any personal benefits of advertising, with scores on the product information, social role and image, and hedonic/pleasure factors being the lowest of all the segments. Its members do not see any benefit to the economy either. And they see advertising as a source of the two ills studied here, with their scores on the materialism/ value corruption and falsity/no sense factors being the highest of all segments. Accordingly, their global advertising attitude is the most unfavorable (M = 1.32). The Demographics of Consumer Attitudes Toward Advertising We cross-tabulated the proportion of the two extreme segments with consumer demographics (see Table 5). Contrasting the two segments, the enthusiasts were found to be significantly younger (2(1) = 7.67, p < .01), with lower levels of education (2(1) = 5.27, p < .05), and to be living in larger settlements (2(4) = 11.71, p < .05) than the severe critics. As to income, the 2 value across the four income groups was not significant.

However, subgroup analysis showed the lowest income group to differ significantly from the other income groups; specifically, the supportive segment came disproportionately more from the lowest income group. DISCUSSION Overview of Findings As expected, Czech consumers global attitudes toward advertising were found, on average, to be in the middle range (H1a supported). This average picture was a composite, however, of considerable diversity within, comprising five segments enthusiasts and severe critics at the two ends, and ambivalents, unbothereds, and conflicteds in between. Of the seven belief factors, materialism and value corruption were not discriminated (H2b supported). The hypothesized discrimination between product information and social image belief factors received mixed support (H2a weakly supported). All other factors (namely, hedonic, materialism/value corruption, falsity, and good-for-the-economy) were discriminated (H2c, H2d, and H2e supported). Consumer beliefs about advertising together explained a significant amount of variance in global attitude (85.3%). The largest contribution was from the good-for-the-economy factor, with the second largest from product information (H3a and H3e unsupported). The hedonic factor made an independent significant contribution (H3d supported), as did the other societal factors (H3b supported). Also, the social image belief factor made a significantly smaller contribution than did product information (H3c supported). In terms of demographics, severe critics (compared with enthusiasts) were more educated and came more from upper-income brackets; they were also older and resided in smaller towns.


The Journal of Advertising TABLE 5 Consumer Demographics of Enthusiasts and Severe Critics Segments

Demographic variables (% within segment) Age Below 40 40 and above Education Primary and vocational Secondary and college/university Net household monthly income (CZK) Below 12,000 12,00117,000 17,00125,000 Above 25,001 Population of town of residence (number of citizens) Less than 1,000 1,0014,999 5,00019,999 20,00099,999 100,000 and more

Enthusiasts 61.8 38.2 70.3 29.7 18.4 22.4 30.3 28.9 11.9 33.1 15.3 17.8 22.0

Severe critics 38.9 61.1

2 value 7.67

p .006

5.27 52.6 47.4 4.37 5.3 31.6 36.8 26.3 11.71 31.6 19.3 17.5 12.3 19.3




General Discussion Factor Structure of Advertising Beliefs The measurement model developed in the United States by Pollay and Mittal (1993) worked well for our Czech consumers in that the items supposed to measure a factor all coalesced on that factor. Furthermore, similar to previous findings (e.g., Dvila and Rojas-Mndez 2001; Korgaonkar, Karson, and Akaah 1997; Pollay and Mittal 1993), for our Czech sample: (1) materialism and value corruption factors were not discriminated, but all others were; (2) the measured beliefs significantly explained overall ad attitudes; and (3) five distinct segments were obtained with belief profiles similar to the U.S. study. One exception was the lack of clear discrimination between the product information and social image factors, a result we had in fact hypothesized. In the theory section, we advanced two main reasons for this: (1) the main motivational focus on functional benefits as opposed to symbolic benefits, and (2) a lack of prior cognitive framework to process the symbolic elements of commercial messages. The Role of Beliefs in Global Attitudes An important finding of this study is the differing relative contribution of the belief factors. The three personal benefit belief factors with positive effects contributed unevenly to explaining overall ad attitude, with product information contributing the most. In comparison, the effects of the falsity/no sense and the materialism/value corruption factors were much weaker. This

pattern suggests that strengthening the information content of advertisements with personally useful information and at the same time avoiding hype and fantasy are likely to result in more favorable advertising attitudes in the Czech Republic. Also, our finding of the significant contribution of the hedonic factor supports Taylor, Bonner, and Dolezals (2002) assertion that amusing stories with intelligent and witty humor will be received well by the Czech consumers. Contrary to our prior expectation (H3e), good-for-theeconomy was found to be the strongest predictor, ahead of product information, with or without social image merged into the latter (see Table 3, Regression B). Our initial logic was that consumers of a new market economy would be more focused on the personal benefits of advertising rather than take cognizance of advertisings macro-benefits. Our results imply, instead, that not only were Czech consumers cognizant of this benefit, but recognition of this macro-benefit also drove their liking of advertising. It would appear that Czech consumers are experiencing the newly liberated economy as an immediate (not remote or macro) phenomenon with obvious personal consequences. Consumer Segments Among the five segments, the severe critics and the conflicted segments require closer study to find the reasons for their dismissal of advertisings supposed benefits. Our conceptual reasons include (1) the negative attitudes toward advertising ingrained during the years of communist rule may still linger

Fall 2010


in consumer memories, and (2) in general, the level of trust in the country is low (see Pavlica and Novy 2003; Pivoda 2001). Demographic Differences An important question for any society, especially one experiencing a new sociopolitical system, is whether all members of that society (young and old, rich and poor) are experiencing the new marketplace alike. As expected, our data revealed that young Czech consumers liked advertising more than did older consumers. Also, the more educated the consumer, the less he or she liked advertising. Perhaps education made them see advertising more critically. As to income, enthusiasts came more from the lowest income group (and marginally also from the highest-income group), whereas critics came more from middle-income groups. Upper-income groups can afford, of course, the new products made available by the liberated economy, but what is interesting is that even lower-income groups welcomed the new economy and its most visible tooladvertising. Emerging from the days of the controlled economy when even items of daily necessity were rationed, their positive stance on the new economy is not illogical. The middle-income group, however, might find itself strapped for income in relation to the beckoning of new luxury goods. Of all the groups, it is this group that most likely sees advertising as promising a false paradise. Implications for Practice For the world of advertising practice and for public policy in the Czech Republic, our results are mixed news. On the one hand, the fact that about 1 in 4 consumers are happy with advertising is good news; on the other hand, the finding that 2 in 3 are ambivalent, unbothered, or conflicted, and that 1 in 10 are severe critics gives cause for concern. Except for the enthusiast segment, no one acknowledges the information benefit of advertising, and most in fact deny it (see Table 4); they also doubt the truthfulness of advertising. These findings are alarming in light of the evidence from previous research that product-related information dominates the advertising content in the country. Advertisers may need to address this issue by reviewing the information content of their ads and bolstering their believability. Given that personal usefulness and hedonic experiences were among the factors significantly affecting Czech consumers global advertising attitudes, a firms efforts should focus on producing credible, informationrich commercials that are, at the same time, entertaining. The hypothesized lack of discrimination between the product information and social image factors also raises important managerial issues. From the message designers points of view, a product informationfocused advertisement and a social

imageoriented advertisement are two very distinct options; if consumers read, however, the same meaning in both, thus missing the symbolic content of the messages, then symbolic image-based brand positioning will have failed. Marketers in new economies will need to assess whether it is premature to seek symbolic positioning for their brands, and they will need to monitor how long consumers will remain focused on the information content of ads. If, on the other hand, symbolic consumption is already part of the aspiration for some consumers, marketers should figure out how best to communicate their image-based brand positioning. Last, in view of the finding that a large proportion of the sample perceived advertising to exacerbate materialistic tendencies and distort societal values, the ad industry should ensure that its professional behavior complies with the ethical advertising standards set in the Code of Advertising Practice of the Czech Advertising Council. In general, the industry should focus its efforts on improving both its practice and its public perceptions. Corrective actions should be taken early rather than later in the formative years of consumer attitudes toward an institution. Limitations Our study has several limitations. First, the data were collected at the end of 2004 and some time has passed since then. Although in U.S. studies negative attitudes persisted over some four decades (from 1960 to 1990; see Pollay and Mittal 1993), Czech consumer attitudes might have changed since the data were collected. However, in 2004, the market reforms in this country were already at an advanced stage and the economy was growing steadily, which suggests that even if any changes have occurred for this relatively short period of time, they may not be substantial. Second, the Pollay and Mittal scale that we used is now somewhat dated and warrants updating even for the U.S. context. Third, we used two instead of the three items proposed by Pollay and Mittal to measure global attitude; this might have weakened our measure of this construct. Fourth, we measured two belief factors with two items each, which might have affected the reliability of the respective scales. Fifth, Cronbachs a values were low for some constructs.49 for good-for-the-economy and .66 for product information and for falsity. Sixth, and finally, we used Pollay and Mittals model, developed in the United States, which may or may not have been able to adequately capture the range of beliefs and attitudes in a Central European country, a point we discuss more fully in the next section. Directions for Future Research We borrowed our theoretical model and measures from the landmark U.S. study of Pollay and Mittal (1993). Although


The Journal of Advertising

the high explained variance in global attitude found in our data corroborates our assumption, our imposed etic (taking an outsiders perspective; Pike 1967) approach nonetheless had an intrinsic limitation in that our model did not consider advertising beliefs that might be unique to consumers in the emerging market economies in general, and to Czech consumers in particular. Future research should supplement our study with an emic approach (an insiders perspective), using open-ended exploratory interviews so as to identify any belief factors absent in the U.S.-based inventory. Furthermore, assessment of overall attitude might also consider alternative metrics (i.e., Likert and semantic differential scales) as well as alternative concept operationalizations (i.e., eliciting opinion toward advertising versus tapping affect or feeling toward advertising); this will enable tests of convergent validity. The subjectivity inherent in our results from the cluster analysis should be noted. The clustering results depend closely on the sample, the variables used in the analysis, and the number of derived clusters. Therefore, convergent validity through additional studies should be sought, and even more importantly, the segment profileseven for the same populationshould be updated periodically. Moreover, it is necessary to unravel the segments beliefs and attitudes further with additional diagnostics questions. For example, are the unbothered consumers merely passive, uninvolved, and uncaring; or are they, instead, attentive but comfortable? In the same vein, do conflicted consumers, or even ambivalents, actually experience a psychological conflict, tormented by trade-offs? Or are they, instead, accepting of the negatives as inevitable trade-offs? And why do the severe critics not find advertising personally useful, or enjoyable? The main focus of this study was on the role of advertising in one of the new market economies of Central and Eastern Europethe Czech Republic. Because the Czech Republic is at the leading edge of market reforms in the region, the attitudes of consumers in other Central and Eastern European countries may not be any more pro-advertising. However, this conjecture needs to be investigated, similarly indexed, and periodically monitored. Contributions This research contributes to existing knowledge as follows. First, being the only study in the Czech Republic, it sheds light on consumer beliefs and attitudes toward advertising in an important region of the world, namely, Central and Eastern Europe. Second, the study provides empirical support for the applicability of Pollay and Mittals theoretical model of advertising beliefs, developed in a Western country, in the context of a newly liberated Central European country, where advertising is a new and growing phenomenon. Third, the results provide further evidence of the predictive power of advertising beliefs

and consumer sociodemographics in a different socioeconomic context. Fourth, the studys findings provide a baseline for future monitoring of the dynamics of advertising beliefs and attitudes in the Czech Republic. This baseline is important as general advertising perceptions will inevitably evolve with the advancement of market reforms. Last, and perhaps most important, the study advances a framework for understanding public attitudes toward advertising in all other new market economies in Central and Eastern Europe. CONCLUSION The market economies of Central and Eastern Europe are still young and fragile, and public trust in marketings most visible instrumentnamely, advertisingis quintessential to their further advancement. It is perilous for marketers not to understand public attitudes in a country and not to take action to ensure that the ranks of advertisings critics do not swell with the passage of time. In all the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, as in the Czech Republic, there is a real need to ensure that consumers, eager to partake of the fruits of the liberated economies, find advertising to deliver true value. This region offers a unique context for understanding the development of public attitudes toward advertising and for deploying advertising as an instrument of economic development. In each country in the region, research is needed to track consumer attitudes and segment distributions on a regular basis. For these much-needed replication studies as well as further diagnostic research, the present study provides a useful framework. REFERENCES
Ajzen, Icek, and Martin Fishbein (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Andrews, Craig, Srinivas Durvasula, and Richard Netemeyer (1994), Testing the Cross-National Applicability of U.S. and Russian Ad Beliefs and Attitude Measures, Journal of Advertising, 21 (1), 7182. Bauer, Raymond A., and Stephen A. Greyser (1968), Advertising in America: The Consumer View, Boston: Harvard Business School Press. BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) (2010), Country Profile: Czech Republic, May 29, available at http:// (accessed June 18, 2010). Beck, Ernest (1999), Consumer Clout, Central European Economic Review, 7 (5), 1415, 18, 20. Belk, Russell W. (1988), Third World Consumer Culture, in Marketing and Development: Toward Broader Dimensions, Erdogan Kumcu and A. Fuat Firat, eds., Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 103127.

Fall 2010


Brislin, Richard W. (1970), Back-Translation for Cross-Cultural Research, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1 (3), 185216. = Brodsk, Jir (2000), Little Czechs, Big Europe, Central Europe Review, 2 (20), May, 22 2000, available at brodsky20.html#endnotes/ (accessed December 27, 2007). Chattopadhyay, Amitava, and Kunal Basu (1990), Humor in Advertising: The Moderating Role of Prior Brand Evaluation, Journal of Marketing Research, 27 (4), 466476. Crain, Rance (2006), Czech Advertising Business Lacks a Footbridge to the Future, Advertising Age, September 17, available at id=111910/ (accessed June 18, 2010). C+ulk, Jan (1995), Czech Political Culture in the 1990s, available at (accessed June 20, 2008). (2004), The Czech Republic, in The Media in Europe: The Euromedia Handbook, Mary Kelly, Gianpietro Mazzoleni, and Denis McQuail, eds., London: Sage, 3142. Czech Government Report (2008), Prague, available at www. (accessed June 9, 2008). Dvila, Vc R., and Jos I. Rojas-Mndez (2001), Attitude Toward Advertising: Does the 7-Factor Model Work in Chile? International Journal of Organizational Theory and Behavior, 4 (1/2), 319. De Pelsmacker, Patrick, and M. Geuens (1998), Reactions to Different Types of Ads in Belgium and Poland, International Marketing Review, 15 (4), 277290. Duncan, Calvin P., and James E. Nelson (1985), Effects of Humor in a Radio Advertising Experiment, Journal of Advertising, 14 (2), 3340. Durvasula, Srinivas, Steven Lysonski, and Subhash C. Mehta (1999), A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Cognitive Responses, Beliefs, and Attitudes Toward Advertising in General in Two Asian Countries, Journal of Marketing Management, 9 (3), 4859. Elliott, Stuart (1992), Building a Consumer Economy Amid Communisms Ruins, New York Times, January 10, available at media-business-advertising-building-consumer-economy-amid-communism-s-ruins.html (accessed June 18, 2010). Greyser, Stephen A., and Raymond A. Bauer (1966), Americans and Advertising: Thirty Years of Public Opinion, Opinion Quarterly, 30 (1), 6978. Hill, Ronald Paul, and Jeannie Gaines (2007), The Consumer Culture of Poverty: Behavioral Research Findings and Their Implications in an Ethnographic Context, Journal of American Culture, 30 (1), 8195. Hofstede, Geert H. (2001), Cultures Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations, 2d ed., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hovet, Jason, Tim Gosling, and Monika Mudranincova (2005), Main Feature: Who Is the Czech Consumer? Prague Tribune, January 1, available at (accessed June 18, 2010).

, Monika Mudranincov, and Petr Vykoukal (2004), Lifestyles of the Rich . . . , Prague Tribune, 106 (September), available at (accessed June 18, 2010). Hraba, Joseph (2001), Trends in Czech Attitudes Toward the Market and Democracy, Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 29, 2 (Winter), 200220. IMF (2008), World Economic and Financial Surveys, World Economic Outlook Database, Washington, DC, April, available at weodata/index.aspx (accessed May 11, 2008). Keller, Kevin Lane, and Y. L. R. Moorthi (2003), Branding in Developing Markets, Business Horizons, 46 (3), 4959. Korgaonkar, Pradeep K., Eric J. Karson, and Ishmael Akaah (1997), Direct Marketing Advertising: The Assents, the Dissents, and the Ambivalents, Journal of Advertising Research, 37 (5), 4155. Koudelova, Radka, and Jeryl Whitelock (2001), A CrossCultural Analysis of Television Advertising in the UK and the Czech Republic, International Marketing Review, 18 (3), 286300. La Ferle, Carrie, and Wei-Na Lee (2002), Attitudes Toward Advertising: A Comparative Study of Consumers in China, Taiwan, South Korea, and the United States, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 15 (2), 523. Larkin, Ernest F. (1977), A Factor Analysis of College Student Attitudes Toward Advertising, Journal of Advertising, 6 (2), 4246. MacCallum, Robert C., Mary Roznowski, Corinne M. Mar, and Janet V. Reith (1994), Alternative Strategies for CrossValidation of Covariance Structure Models, Multivariate Behavioral Research, 29 (1), 132. MacKenzie, Scott B., and Richard J. Lutz (1989), An Empirical Examination of the Structural Antecedents of Attitude Toward the Ad in an Advertising Pretesting Context, Journal of Marketing, 53 (2), 4865. Mick, David G. (1986), Consumer Research and Semiotics: Exploring the Morphology of Signs, Symbols, and Significance, Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (2), 196213. Millan, Elena S. (2008), Clothing Consumption in Eastern Europe: The Case of Bulgaria and the Czech Republic and Bulgaria, Sad Business School, University of Oxford. , Patrick De Pelsmacker, and Len Tiu Wright (2010), Clothing Consumption in Two Recent EU Member States: A Cross-Cultural Study, paper presented at the 2010 Global Warming Conference, Tokyo, September 912. Mittal, Banwari (1994), Public Assessment of TV Advertising: Faint Praise and Harsh Criticism, Journal of Advertising Research, 34 (1), 3553. Moran, C. C. (1996), Short-Term Mood Change, Perceived Funniness, and the Effect of Humor Stimuli, Behavioral Medicine, 22 (1), 3238. Pavlica, Karel, and Ivan Novy (2003), Czech Culture as Seen by Foreign Managers and Entrepreneurs, Human Resources, 8 (56), 1719. Petrovici, Dan, and Marin Marinov (2007), Determinants and Antecedents of General Attitudes Towards Advertising: A


The Journal of Advertising

Study of Two EU Accession Countries, European Journal of Marketing, 41 (3/4), 307326. Pierce, Frank N. (1971), How Foreign Students See Advertising, Journal of Advertising Research, 11 (6), 2629. Pike, Kenneth L. (1967), Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behavior, 2d ed., The Hague: Mouton. Pivoda, Miroslav (2001), Does the Silicon Valley Concept Work in the Czech Republic? Possible Culture Reasons for Innovation Success, Journal of Enterprising Culture, 9 (4), 111128. Pollay, Richard W., and Banwari Mittal (1993), Heres the Beef: Factors, Determinants, and Segments in Consumer Criticism of Advertising, Journal of Marketing, 57 (3), 99114. Rose, Richard, and Christian Haerpfer (1998), Trends in Democracies and Markets: New Democracies Barometer 199198, Aberdeen: Centre for the Study of Public Policy, University of Aberdeen. Sandage, C. H., and John D. Leckenby (1980), Student Attitudes Toward Advertising: Institution vs. Instrument, Journal of Advertising, 9 (2), 2932, 44. Shavitt, Sharon, Pamela Lowrey, and James Haefner (1998), Public Attitudes Toward Advertising: More Favorable Than You Might Think, Journal of Advertising Research, 38 (4), 722. Simmons, Carolyn J., and Gita Venkataram Johar (1994), Knowing More Than Were Told: Inferences from Advertising Claims, in Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 21, Chris T. Allen and Deborah Roedder John, eds., Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 96.

Slater, Don (1990), Media: Puffing the Empty PacketThe Campaigns May Be Slick But the Products May Not Be Available/The State of Czechoslovakias Ad Industry, Guardian, July 9. Taylor, Charles R., P. Greg Bonner, and Michael Dolezal (2002), Advertising in the Czech Republic: Czech Perceptions of Effective Advertising and Advertising Clutter, in New Directions in International Advertising Research, vol. 12, Charles R. Taylor, ed., Bingley, UK: Emerald Group, 137149. Trends in Advertising Expenditure (2007), European Advertising & Media Forecast, 21 (April Supplement), 9127. UNDP (2009), Human Development Index Trends, in Human Development Report 2009, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 167170, available at HDR_2009_EN_Complete.pdf (accessed June 18, 2010). van Herpen, Erica, Rik Pieters, Jana Fidrmucova, and Peter Roosenboom (2000), The Information Content of Magazine Advertising in Market and Transition Economies, Journal of Consumer Policy, 23 (3), 257283. Weinberger, Marc G., and Charles S. Gulas (1992), The Impact of Humor in Advertising: A Review, Journal of Advertising, 21 (4), 3559. Wells, Ludmilla G., and Stuart Van Auken (2006), A Comparison of Associational and Claimless-Informational Advertising in Russia, Journal of East-West Business, 12 (1), 2948. , , and William J. Ritchie (2007), Russian Advertising Attitudes: Reassessing the Two-Factor Model, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 20 (2), 515.

Fall 2010


APPENDIX Factor Structure of Advertising BeliefsCalibration and Validation Samples To ascertain that the factor structure of advertising beliefs (to be estimated) was not due to chance, we divided the total sample into two random split-halves, designating them as calibration and validation samples. We conducted a series of CFAs on the calibration sample and tested the fitted models on the validation sample using the fixed-structure cross-validation method (see MacCallum et al. 1994). This approach requires all the coefficients in linear equations (factor loadings in the case of CFA) and variances/covariances of exogenous variables (of factors in the case of CFA) to be held fixed when fitting the model to the validation sample. The models were fitted to the covariance matrices of both samples by the method of maximum likelihood. Testing the entire model of measured beliefs on the split-half samples became infeasible due to the unfavorable ratio of estimated parameters to sample size. We therefore ran the procedure with two truncated submodels, with a subset of factors at a time. Specifically, Model A comprised only the three individual advertising beliefs factors and Model B comprised only the beliefs related to social and economic effects of advertising. Next, to parallel the tests of various hypotheses with CFAs on the full sample reported in the text, we ran relevant portions (i.e., submodels) on split-half samples as follows: Model C comprised product information and falsity with item 21 of falsity cross loading on product information, Model D comprised product information and social image (separate versus merged), and Model E comprised materialism and value corruption (separate versus merged). Model A. Three Personal Belief Factors Model A1. Calibration (first half) sample A2. Validation (second half) sample Model B. Three Societal Belief Factors Model B1. Calibration (first half) sample B2. Validation (second half) sample 2 146.31 123.79 df 51 66 CMIN/DF GFI 2.86 .911 1.88 .927 AGFI .864 .91 CFI .868 .919 RMSEA .085 .058 2 66.82 59.74 df 24 36 CMIN/DF GFI 2.78 .945 1.66 .950 AGFI .898 .938 CFI .946 .968 RMSEA .083 .051

Model C. Product Information and Falsity Belief Factors (With and Without Cross Loading of One Falsity Item on Product Information) Model C1. Calibration (first half) sample (no cross-loading) C2. Calibration (first half) sample (with cross-loading) C3. Validation (second half) sample (no cross-loading) C4. Validation (second half) sample (with cross-loading) 2 25.84 7.79 74.91 32.26 df 8 7 15 15 CMIN/DF 3.23 1.11 4.99 2.15 GFI .965 .990 .907 .961 AGFI .909 .969 .869 .945 CFI .950 .998 .824 .949 RMSEA .093 .021 .125 .067

Model D. Product Information and Social Image Belief Factors (Separate Versus Merged) Model D1. Calibration (first half) sample (separate factors) D2. Calibration (first half) sample (merged factors) D3. Validation (second half) sample (separate factors) D4. Validation (second half) sample (merged factors) 2 12.50 14.84 29.59 30.12 df 8 9 15 15 CMIN/DF 1.56 1.65 1.97 2.01 GFI .984 .981 .960 .960 AGFI .958 .955 .943 .944 CFI .991 .989 .970 .969 RMSEA .047 .050 .062 .063


The Journal of Advertising

Model E. Materialism and Value Corruption Belief Factors (Separate Versus Merged) Model E1. Calibration (first half) sample (separate factors) E2. Calibration (first half) sample (merged factors) E3. Validation (second half) sample (separate factors) E4. Validation (second half) sample (merged factors) 2 17.14 23.64 23.44 18.90 df 13 14 21 21 CMIN/DF 1.32 1.69 1.12 .90 GFI .982 .974 .975 .979 AGFI .961 .948 .966 .972 CFI .986 .966 .992 1.00 RMSEA .035 .052 .021 .000

As the above tables show, all models demonstrate good fit; the poorest of these are Models C1 and C3, both with no cross loading of item 21 (present a true picture of goods) on the product information factor. When this cross loading is freed, the resulting models (C2 and C4) achieve better fit. More to the point, in each case, the validation sample data fit the model well, which was first fitted on the calibration sample. Therefore, in the main text, we chose to report the same analyses on the entire sample.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.