ABSTRACT
Several authors have proposed frameworks to help advertisers predict and plan advertising effectiveness. Rossiter and Percy’s advertising grid (1997) recommends that the ad appeal should match the purchase motivation or attitude base. They suggest that for utilitarian brands informational advertising is more effective than transformational advertising. Likewise, for hedonic brands transformational advertising is more effective than informational advertising. These recommendations were tested in an experiment with different products and different ads. Advertising effectiveness was measured by brand and ad evaluations.
In contrast with Rossiter and Percy, we find that advertising that mismatches rather than matches the motivation for the brand is more effective. Our finding can be explained in two ways. Firstly, schema theory suggests that a moderate degree of incongruity between advertising and brand perceptions and unexpected but relevant information in the mismatching ad results in favorable evaluations, as compared with a matching ad. Secondly, research on attitudes and persuasion suggests that, if typical product category ads are associated with negative affect, the particular ad functions as a counterattitudinal message, which is more persuasive in the case of a mismatch rather than a match with the category ads. We find evidence for both explanations.
INTRODUCTION
Advertising grids have been developed to assist professionals and researchers in assessing the effectiveness of product-ad combinations. The Rossiter-Percy (RP) advertising grid states that the effectiveness of advertising depends on the type of purchase motivation (informational versus transformational) and the level of involvement (Rossiter, Percy & Donovan 1991; Rossiter & Percy 1997).
The RP grid suggests that informational advertising is more effective than transformational advertising for utilitarian brands, because informational advertising reflects the purchase motivation associated with utilitarian brands (informational motivation). Likewise, transformational advertising is more effective than informational advertising for hedonic goods (transformational motivation). Another well-known advertising grid is the FCB grid, developed at the advertising agency Foote Cone & Belding (Vaughn 1980, 1986).
The FCB grid distinguishes between products on a think/feel dimension reflecting the type of information processing associated with the product. Contrary to the RP grid, the FCB grid does not clearly distinguish between brands and products. However, brand choice motives can differ from product choice motives depending on the brand’s positioning in the product category (Rossiter & Percy 1997). Only if a brand is positioned on a benefit that is related to the main purchase motive associated with the product category, brand choice and product choice motives will be largely the same.
The advertising grids state that there is no single way in which ads work, but that it depends on the advertising situation. The normative recommendation from both grids is that the ad appeal should match the attitude base. However, Dubé, Chattopadhyay & Letarte (1996) note that the evidence in support of this recommendation is anecdotal at best and neither systematically nor empirically 2 investigated.
Furthermore, they state that research in psychology on attitudes and persuasion provides inconclusive findings with respect to the matching hypothesis. In the light of their remarks, the purpose of this study is to test the matching hypothesis of the RP advertising grid by means of an experiment. The RP grid is better suited for testing than the FCB grid because it offers specific advertising tactics for different advertising situations, while the FCB grid only gives general recommendations.
In the next section, we describe the RP grid in more detail, and deal with alternative predictions from schema theory and the theory of attitudes and persuasion. We then describe our experiment and its results. Contrary to RP predictions, we found that mismatching advertising is more effective than advertising matching the purchase motivation. We discuss our findings in the final section.
THEORY
In this section, the concepts and terminology used in the RP grid are explained and related to similar distinctions made in the marketing and advertising literature. Next, predictions of the RP grid are compared with findings from two streams of research that yield further insights into the relationships between advertising and purchase motivation. This review of psychological research on attitudes and persuasion, and schema theory leads to the identification of conditions in which the matching hypothesis is likely to hold. Finally, schema theory is discussed to arrive at hypotheses about information processing associated with ads matching or mismatching the purchase motivation.
Concepts and terminology of the RP grid.
The RP grid specifies that the effectiveness of advertising depends on the type of purchase motivation (informational versus transformational) and the level of involvement. Rossiter et al. (1991) define informational motives as “negatively originated purchase motivations that can be satisfied by providing information about the product or brand” (p. 16). Transformational motives are defined as “purchase motives that promise to enhance the brand user by effectuating a transformation in the brand user’s sensory, mental or social state” (p. 16).
Low-involvement decisions are characterized by trial experience, whereas high-involvement decisions require search and conviction prior to purchase. In the RP grid, the attitude toward the brand is considered to be the main indicator of advertising effectiveness, given awareness of the brand. When transformational motives prevail, the attitude toward the ad may mediate the attitude toward the brand, especially for low-involvement brands. However, in the case of informational motives, the processing of the advertising message is more likely to determine the brand attitude, rather than the attitude toward the ad.
In their advertising tactics, Rossiter et al. (1991) recommend that ads for low-involvement informational products should use simple problem-solution formats and include only one or two (extremely stated) benefits. For high-involvement informational products, benefit claims should be convincing enough to change the initial attitude toward the brand into a positive direction. Ads for low-involvement transformational products should display emotional authenticity, which is related to the brand by association. For high-involvement transformational products, both emotional authenticity and personal identification with the product in the ad is advised. These advertising tactics are generally referred to in the advertising literature as informational and transformational advertising, respectively (Puto & Wells 1984, Aaker & Stayman 1992).
Holbrook & Hirschmann (1982) introduced a similar distinction between utilitarian and hedonic goods in marketing. Utilitarian goods are primarily bought for informational reasons, including instrumental and utilitarian reasons, whereas hedonic goods are mainly purchased for transformational reasons, including consummatory affective (hedonic) gratification (Batra & Ahtola 1990).
Irrespective of whether attitude toward the ad or informational processing influences the brand attitude, it is plausible that both attitude toward the ad and brand attitude are determinded by the match or mismatch of product type and ad type. The matching hypotheses can now be restated as follows:
- H1: For utilitarian products, informational ads will lead to more favorable brand and ad evaluations than transformational ads.
- H2: For hedonic products, transformational ads will lead to more favorable brand and ad evaluations than informational ads.
Conditions in which the matching hypothesis is likely to hold. Rossiter and Percy (1991, 1997) have formulated their advertising tactics as general recommendations. However, two streams of research suggest that the matching hypothesis advanced in the advertising grid is likely to hold only under specific conditions. Research on attitudes and persuasion has provided conflicting findings with respect to the matching hypothesis (Dubé et al., 1996). In addition, several studies based on schema theory contradict the matching hypothesis. Findings from both streams of research lead to the identification of conditions in which the matching hypothesis is likely to hold, and conditions in which the matching hypothesis may not hold.
Attitude and persuasion research. Like advertising grids, psychological research on attitudes and persuasion is concerned with the effectiveness of different types of arguments in changing different types of attitudes. This differs from the RP grid in two respects. Firstly, in psychological studies on attitudes and persuasion, a distinction is made between cognitive and affective attitudes. This distinction does not necessarily correspond with the distinction between utilitarian and hedonic attitudes made in the advertising grid. Millar & Millar (1990) classify attitudes as either affective or cognitive, based on consumers’ statements about a drink, for instance.
Statements such as “cola makes me feel refreshed” (positive) or “water is boring” (negative) lead to classification as an affective attitude, whereas statements such as “water is naturally low in calories” (positive) or “cola contains too many preservatives” (negative) lead to classification as a cognitive attitude. This example shows that an attitude toward a hedonic product such as a soft drink can be based on both cognitive and affective statements. However, when brand choice motives are examined, the two attitude distinctions are very similar.
Drolet & Aaker (2001), for example, use consumers’ associations with brands (either cognitive or affective in nature) to operationalize cognitive-based and affective-based attitudes. In their study, the Head & Shoulders shampoo brand represents a cognitive-based attitude and the Johnson & Johnson baby shampoo brand represents an affective-based attitude. Presumably, Head & Shoulders is bought primarily for utilitarian reasons (dandruff control) and Johnson & Johnson baby shampoo is bought primarily for hedonic reasons (soft and mild sensation of hair wash).
Secondly, attitude psychology mainly focuses on counterattitudinal information, whereas the RP grid and advertising studies in general are primarily concerned with pro-attitudinal information. In Edwards (1990), for example, subjects tasted a beverage resulting in favorable attitudes based on affect. Then they received either an affective type of persuasion (the drink’s mildly aversive scent) or a cognitive type of persuasion (negative information about the drink), in both cases counterattitudinal in nature.
In contrast, ads usually contain positive brand information. Consequently, only in the case of negative brand attitudes, advertising contains counterattitudinal information. Bearing in mind these differences with the RP grid, the most important findings from psychological studies on the effect of message type on persuasion will be discussed next.
Edwards (1990) finds that affective-based attitudes change more under affective than under cognitive means of persuasion, and vice versa for cognitive-based attitudes. Her data support the matching hypothesis: a message that is congruent with the attitude base is more effective than a message that is incongruent with the attitude base.
However, Millar & Millar (1990) find that affective-based attitudes are more susceptible to rational than to affective arguments, whereas cognitive-based attitudes are more susceptible to emotional than to cognitive arguments. This implies that a message that is incongruent is more effective than a message that is congruent with the attitude base.
Millar (1992) explains these conflicting findings by arguing that counterattitudinal information directly targeted at the base of the attitude leads to counterarguing for individuals with strong attitudes, while counterattitudinal information is likely to overwhelm individuals with weak attitudes. Drolet & Aaker (2001) find empirical evidence that individuals with weak attitudes, such as those used by Edwards (1990) are persuaded more by congruent appeals, while individuals
with strong attitudes, such as those used in Millar & Millar (1990), are persuaded more by incongruent appeals.
The studies discussed so far focused on counterattitudinal messages. Millar & Millar (1990) also investigated proattitudinal messages but they did not find evidence in their study for an argument typ attitude type interaction. They say that this is understandable because it is difficult to characterize agreement with a proattitudinal advertisement as an attitude change when there is already a strong attitude present. However, this reasoning does not seem valid for weak attitudes.
