DEMONSTRATING THE SUPERIORITY OF THE FCB GRID
AS A TOOL FOR STUDENTS TO WRITE
EFFECTIVE ADVERTISING STRATEGY
Johan C. Yssel, Assistant Professor
Department of Journalism
Ball State University, Muncie, IN 47306
Submitted to the Advertising Division, Teaching Standards, (Research in
Brief) for consideration at the 1995 AEJMC convention, Washington, DC.
ABSTRACT
This paper demonstrates how strategies written according to the FCB grid
(quadrant and sextant versions) will be superior to those written as
per a
textbook formula. As far as could be determined, this is the first
time an
attempt to measure strategy has been undertaken. Three different ways for
writing strategies, and the instrument for measuring their effectiveness
are discussed, before demonstrating that when students use the FCB
grid,
superior strategies result.
INTRODUCTION
Advertising educators may have different methods of teaching strategy,
but, based on discussions the author has had with colleagues at various
universities, they all seem to face similar frustrations: the majority
of
advertising students experience problems when it comes to grasping,
and
writing effective advertising strategy. Although authors of
advertising
textbooks propose various formats, they are unanimous in proposing a
document detailing the components for effective strategy.
Jewler (1992) suggests that strategy should be simple, specific, durable
and advertisable, and proposes the following ingredients: advertising
objective, description of the target audience, key selling idea and key
benefits. Albright (1992) claims that strategy is a plan for action
and
recommends a creative work plan consisting of the following
components:
client, key fact, consumer problem to overcome, advertising goal,
principal
competition, target market, consumer promise, reason why, and mandatories.
In explaining DDB Needham's R.O.I. (Relevance, Originality and Impact)
strategy, Wells (1989) says the R.O.I. secret lies in answering five
questions:
y What is the purpose of the advertising?
y To whom will the advertising be addressed?
y What competitive benefit will be promised and how will it be
supported?
y What personality will distinguish the brand?
y When, where and under what circumstances will the target be most
receptive to the message and what media will
deliver that message at the lowest
possible cost? 1
From the foregoing it should be clear that there is no one correct way to
write advertising strategy and that advertising practitioners and
educators
have different methods of writing and teaching strategy. Moriarty (1991)
suggests that the minimum areas which a strategy should address are:
y To whom are we talking?
y What do we want to tell them?
y How are we going to tell them?
Although the FCB grid was never intended to serve as an educational tool,
the author has applied it successfully in his advertising classes to
address the three areas which Moriarty (1991) considers to be the minimum
for writing strategy. Richard Vaughn, creator of the FCB grid,
introduced
this model in 1979 "in response to a need for strategic discipline and
creative stimulation during advertising planning."2 The grid builds on
the
traditional advertising/marketing theories (1950s), consumer behavior
models (1960s), and consumer involvement and brain specialization
theories
(1970s & 1980s).
Figure 1: The FCB grid
[--- Pict Graphic Goes Here ---]
As can be seen from Figure 1, the FCB grid centers on consumers in the
purchasing and decision-making process and this is encompassed in an
outline where each area has its own specific characteristics pertaining
to:
y assessing consumer involvement in the decision-making process
y determining if purchases are made mainly for rational/emotional
reasons
y suggesting the most suitable strategy for a specific area
y approximating one of the traditional advertising/marketing theories
y suggesting the appropriate hierarchy-of-effects model
y depicting products positioned in each area
With the introduction of The Copy Workshop Workbook (1988), Bendinger
proposed a formula for writing advertising strategy which consists of
three
components: objective statement, support statement and a choice between a
tone or brand character statement (the author favors a brand character
statement, while Bendinger leans toward a tone statement, which deals
with
the selling attitudes of the advertising).
The objective statement combines the advertising objective with a brief
description of the target market and brand name.
The proposed formula that Bendinger suggests, is: Advertising
will (verb)(target market) that (product/brand)
is/will/provides (statement of objective/benefit)
The support statement, which is referred to as the "reasons why" section;
i.e., how the objective statement will be attained, is
summarized in a single sentence: Support will be
(support/reason why)
Finally, the brand character statement, describing the personality of the
brand, simply states: Character of the brand will be
seen
to be (description of brand)
The purpose of this study is to demonstrate that not only can the FCB grid
be utilized by advertising students to write advertising strategy, but
that it results in superior advertising strategy, when compared to
Bendinger's textbook formula. To demonstrate this, the following two null
hypotheses were posed:
H1 When students write advertising strategy, those strategies written
according to the FCB quadrant grid will be judged similar
to those written according to the textbook method.
H2 When students write advertising strategy, those strategies written
according to the FCB sextant grid will be judged similar
to those written according to the FCB quadrant grid.
METHOD
To demonstrate the superiority of the FCB grid as a tool for writing
advertising strategy, the author analyzed strategies written according to
three different methods: textbook formula, the FCB quadrant and the
FCB
sextant grid. These methods were taught to students enrolled in the
author's classes during the spring 1994 semester. As the students of the
Advanced Copywriting course had been exposed to both the textbook
formula
and the FCB quadrant method while enrolled in the Advertising
Copywriting
and Layout course, it was decided to teach them to write strategy
according
to the FCB sextant grid. The author had no preference as to which section
of the Advertising Copywriting and Layout course would be taught which one
of the remaining two methods (textbook formula and FCB quadrant grid) to
write strategy. These two methods were assigned at random.
Target population
The target population for this study was undergraduate university students
who had selected an advertising option within a journalism major. The
subjects were enrolled in the Department of Journalism at a
medium-sized
Midwestern university during the spring semester, 1994. Three
accidental
samples, which were intact, were employed. These samples were intact
as
they consisted of students who were enrolled in two advertising
copywriting
and layout (Journ 354), and one advanced copywriting course (Journ 455)
taught by the author during the spring 1994 semester.
Table 1: Subject characteristics
[--- Pict Graphic Goes Here ---]
Table 1 contains a breakdown of the classes according to relevant subject
characteristics. Each group consisted of ten students (four females
and
six males) and their ages ranged from 20 to 24 years. The first group
consisted of students enrolled in the advertising copywriting and layout
course whose GPAs (Grade Point Averages) ranged from 2.02 to 3.88 on a
4.0
scale. Students of the second group were enrolled in another section
of
the advertising copywriting and layout course and their GPAs ranged
from
2.06 to 3.11. Students of the the third group were enrolled in the
advanced copywriting course and their GPAs ranged from 2.11 to 3.64. Thus,
a total of 30 students, 12 females and 18 males, between 20 and 24 years
of age, and whose GPAs ranged from 2.02 to 3.88, served as subjects in
the
study.
Teaching methods
An equal amount of time (two class periods, each 75 minutes long) was
allocated to teaching the three groups how to write advertising
strategy.
The same teaching methodology was used for all three groups: lectures
on
the relevant method for writing strategy were further explained by
illustrating on the chalk board, as well as discussing well-known
successful strategies (Avis, Pepsi, Michelob, etc.) These methods were
taught within the first two weeks of the spring semester, 1994. During
the
remainder of the semester students received various assignments in order
to practice what they were taught.
Method one: textbook formula
The method referred to as the textbook formula is what Bendinger proposed
in The Copy Workshop Workbook (1988). According to this
method, students have to "plug in" words in the
formula which consists of three components,
objective
statement, support statement and a brand character
statement (discussed earlier).
Method two: FCB Quadrant grid
The FCB quadrant grid method consisted of teaching students how the FCB
grid, which Vaughn introduced in 1979, can be applied to
address those areas (Whom are we talking to? What do we want to
tell
them? How are we going to tell them?) which Moriarty
(1991)
considers the minimum that should be taken into
account
when writing strategy. The author found that students
became so involved in determining a product's exact location on the FCB
quadrant grid, that they lost track of their ultimate goal: to write
an effective advertising strategy. Consequently, the author
developed a three-step process to aid them in positioning a
product in a quadrant. This will be briefly discussed.
Step 1
The first step does not involve determining where a product belongs
in a quadrant, but rather selecting the appropriate quadrant in
which a product should be positioned (to illustrate how
the
3-step process works, the author will explain how
Tombstone
frozen pizza should be positioned on the quadrant grid).
Figure 2: Step 1 for positioning products on the FCB grid
[--- Pict Graphic Goes Here ---]
Step 2
This step, or any subsequent steps, will not change the quadrant which
was selected during step 1. A product will always remain in the
quadrant as selected per step 1. The sole purpose
of steps 2 and 3 is to move closer to determining where a
product
should be positioned within the quadrant which was
selected
during step 1. In step 2, student strategists have
to
draw a grid inside the quadrant which was selected during
step
1 (quadrant 4). The next move would be, based on the brand
name, to select a quadrant which would be considered most
suitable for the product. As Tombstone is an unusual name for a
frozen pizza, it would seem to be more of a high than a
low involvement decision and certainly
more
rational than emotional. It would thus be acceptable to
select
quadrant 1 (in quadrant 4) as shown in figure 2. As is
the case with the first step, there is no actual
positioning of the product during step 2.
Figure 3: Step 2 for positioning products on the FCB grid
[--- Pict Graphic Goes Here ---]
Step 3
The sole purpose of this step is to determine where the product should
be positioned in the quadrant which was selected during step
1. In this step, student strategists have to draw a grid
inside the quadrant which was selected during step
2
(quadrant 1). The next move would be to,
based on
the features/attributes/characteristics, select a quadrant which
would be considered most suitable for the product (some of these
characteristics include: convenience, inexpensive,
great taste, availability, hassle-free). Based on
the
se, It would seem feasible to select quadrant 2 (in
quadrant
1) and then the product is positioned within the
last quadrant selection.
Figure 4: Step 3 for positioning products on the FCB grid
[--- Pict Graphic Goes Here ---]
Finally, if so desired, the additional grids which were drawn in
quadrant 4 during steps 2 and 3, may be removed to get a
clearer picture as to exactly where
a
Tombstone pizza will fit on the FCB grid.
Students now have to go back to the grid (Figure 1) to determine exactly
what the positioning of a product in this quadrant implies,
and then write the strategy for it.
Figure 5: Step 3 with previously-drawn grids removed
[--- Pict Graphic Goes Here ---]
Method three: FCB Sextant grid
The grid, as it is known, distinguishes only between high and low
involvement and consists of four quadrants (see
Figure 1). When Vaughn introduced the grid, he
agreed
that some products could belong between
quadrants
1 and 3 or between 2 and 4. By acknowledging the two "new" areas,
involvement is now classified in terms of three categories; high, medium
and low. It should be noted that the sextant grid does
not
result in products' moving from a high or low involvement
category to the medium involvement
category. Products remained where they were originally
plotted; rather the appearance of the grid changed: from
quadrants to sextants within the same spatial
area.
Figure 6: The FCB sextant grid
[--- Pict Graphic Goes Here
---]
Unlike the quadrant grid, where the plotting of the product in each
quadrant is very important, this is not the case with the
sextant grid. What is important is the selection
of
the sextant in which the product will be plotted. The
sextant
grid (Figure 6), too, enables students to address those areas that
Moriarty (1991) considers to be the minimum when writing strategy.
Experimental task
Mallo Cup, a candy consisting of two chocolate cups, filled with
marshmallow and topped with coconut, was selected as the product for which
students had to write an advertising strategy as per the method they
were
taught. This candy was selected because it has not been widely
advertised
and, therefore, students would not have had an opportunity to base
their
strategies on, or copy them from, existing advertising.
INSTRUMENT
No standardized scale for measuring the effectiveness of advertising
strategy exists. Using the textbook formula as a norm, the author
developed such a scale. The textbook formula incorporates five components
(objective, target market, brand name, support and brand character).
An
assumed equal interval, five-point scale (5 = excellent, 4 = good, 3 =
average, 2 = weak, 1 = poor) was developed to evaluate four of these
components (brand name was eliminated as it was supplied to all groups).
To determine scores of these components, they had to be evaluated
against
the following:
The objective had to be specific, measurable, reasonable, and meaningful.
The description of the target market had to
include as
many details as possible in terms of demographics,
psychographics, lifestyles, etc. The support section had
to be preemptive, unique, compelling, believable and meaningful, while
the
brand character had to be a "real" one with personality
traits or a theme and executional
characteristics
that could form an integral part of a campaign and
brand identity.
The dependent variable was the actual ranking score of each strategy and
the independent variable the teaching method to which each group was
exposed.
Two colleagues with numerous years of practical experience (which
qualified them to evaluate these strategies) were recruited to evaluate the
various strategies in order to avoid personal bias and contamination by
the author. The raters were not familiar with which method was used
for
writing which strategy. Each student strategy was typed and averaged
one
page in length and had to be evaluated on four components. Components
were
evaluated by the raters assessing a score (on a 5-point scale which was di
scussed earlier) to each component and as a total of 30 strategies
were
involved, 120 evaluations resulted. A section for comments was added
if
the raters wanted to comment on any of the strategies, regardless of
which
method was used.
The reliability of this experiment is demonstrated by the differences and
similarities between the 120 strategy component scores, contained in
Table
2.
Table 2: Differences and similarities between scores on components of
strategies
[--- Pict Graphic Goes Here ---]
On 92 (76.6%) of the components the raters' scores were within one point
or less of each other. The scores of the remaining 28 (23.3%)
components
were between two and three points of each other. The fact that more
than
three-quarters of all component scores were either the same, or within
one
point of each other, lends credibility to the reliability of the
experiment.
The two total scores for each strategy (one per rater) were averaged and
two-tailed t-tests, alpha level .05, were applied to determine if one
specific method was superior to another. The data were analyzed at the
computer center of the author's university, using the SPSS-X
statistical
package. A set of two planned comparisons was conducted. The first
focused on the difference between the FCB quadrant grid and textbook
approaches. The second focused on the difference between the FCB sextant
grid and the FCB quadrant grid approaches. The analysis was patterned
after
that suggested by Keppel and Zedeck (1989) to provide answers to highly
focused questions in a data set.
FINDINGS
If the component scores for each strategy are totaled, the highest
possible score for a strategy is 20 points. Using the five-point scale for
components (1 = weak; 2 = below average; 3 = average; 4 = good; 5 =
excellent) the following parameters result: 0 - 4 = weak, 5 - 8 = below
average, 9 - 12 = average, 13 - 16 = good and 17 - 20 = excellent.
The
author averaged the two raters' score for each strategy and this data
are
presented in a simple categorical cross-break in Table 3. Half of the
strategies written according to the textbook formula (5/10) were scored
as
below average and weak. Two each were scored as average and good
while one
was scored as excellent. All the strategies written according to the FCB
quadrant method were scored as either average (6/10) or good (4/10)
while
none was considered to be excellent. In contrast to this, seven of
the
strategies written according to the FCB sextant method were scored as
either good or excellent (three falling in the latter category) and the
balance (three) was scored as average.
From Table 3 the following is noted: The five strategies which were
scored as below average and weak were all written according to the
textbook
formula. Of the 11 strategies which were scored as average, the majority
(nine) were written according to the two FCB grid methods. Half of
the 14
strategies which were scored from good to excellent, were written
according
to the FCB sextant grid method, while the other half were nearly evenly
divided between the textbook formula (three) and the FCB quadrant
method
(four). Of interest should be that 75% of the strategies which were
considered to be excellent, were written according to the FCB sextant
method; none written according to the FCB quadrant method received an
excellent score. Furthermore, none of the strategies which was written
according to one of the FCB grid methods received a score lower than
average.
Table 3: Categorization of the averaged total scores of strategies
[--- Pict Graphic Goes Here ---]
In Table 4, descriptive statistics are presented by group. When the means
are compared, the strategies written as per the three different methods
can be reported as follows: Those written according to the textbook
formula
and the FCB quadrant would fall in the average range with the textbook
formula method at the bottom end (9.35) and the FCB quadrant method at
the
higher end of the range (12.20). The mean of the strategies written
according to the FCB sextant method (15.10) would put these in the good
category. The standard deviations indicate that the strategies for the
quadrant method (1.38) are more closely dispersed around the mean than
those of the sextant method (2.48) and the textbook formula (4.55)
Table 4: Descriptive statistics
[--- Pict Graphic Goes Here ---]
Scores of strategies for the textbook formula ranged from weak to
excellent (4.0 - 18.0), compared to those for the quadrant method which
ranged from average to good (10.0 -14.0) and the sextant method which
ranged from average to excellent (11.5 - 18.5). It would appear that
there
was no consistency among those strategies written according to the
textbook method and this inconsistency is further enforced by the standard
deviation (4.55).
Table 5: Summary of significance testing of planned comparisons among groups
[--- Pict Graphic Goes Here ---]
The statistical significance of the superiority of the FCB quadrant grid
for writing advertising strategy, when compared to the textbook
formula,
was tested using a two-tailed t-test at a significance level of .05.
To
reject the first null hypothesis with 27 degrees of freedom, a t-value
larger than 2.052 was required. The t-value of 2.058 for the first null
hypothesis exceeded this, and the first null hypothesis is rejected as
strategies written according to the FCB quadrant method received higher
scores than those written according to the textbook formula. The
probability of a t-value of 2.058 occurring by chance is 0.049.
The statistical significance of the superiority of the FCB sextant method
for writing advertising strategy, when compared to the FCB quadrant
method,
was tested using a two-tailed t-test at a significant level of .05. To
reject the second null hypothesis with 27 degrees of freedom, a
t-value
larger than 2.052 was required. The t-value of 2.094 for the second
null
hypothesis exceeded this and this null hypothesis is rejected as
strategies
written according to the FCB sextant method received higher scores than
those written according to the FCB quadrant method. The probability
of a
t-value of 2.094 occurring by chance is 0.045.
DISCUSSION
This study demonstrated that the FCB grid is a superior method for writing
advertising strategies when compared to those written according to the
textbook formula and the results from the experiment which
substantiated
this, are presented in Table 5. From Table 3 it is clear that
strategies
written according to the textbook formula came a distant third, as
their
mean scores just fell within the average range.
The author suggests that the poor showing of the strategies written
according to the textbook formula could result from the fact that this
method consists of a formula where words have to be "plugged into" a
framework which then becomes a strategy. An effective and sound strategy
requires more than that. In order to write an effective strategy, all
variables which could possibly influence such a strategy, have to be
considered. To suggest a formula for writing strategy is too simplistic,
as this process is a time-consuming, thought-provoking and involved
one.
This argument is further supported by the fact that the strategies
written
according to the textbook formula fared very poorly when evaluated by
independent raters who did not know which method was employed for writing
the various strategies.
One should note the following differences when comparing the FCB grid to
the textbook formula:
y In each of the areas of the FCB grid, it is suggested which type of
strategy could reach those consumers in a most effective way
(refer to Figures 1 and 6)
y The FCB grid summarizes consumers' involvement and thought
processes in their decision-making when purchasing products, and,
therefore, it is possible to derive from the FCB
grid a full and complete picture of the consumers
who
have to be targeted.
y The FCB grid also demonstrates whether products are purchased
mainly for rational (where logic and functionality
prevails) or emotional (where feeling and image are
important) reasons, or a combination of both
y The various areas of the FCB grid imply which media could reach
the target market in an effective manner.
The FCB grid can serve as a guideline to address those areas which
Moriarty (1991) considers to be the minimum for writing strategy. However,
the author has found that students tend to limit their answers of the
third question ("How are we going to tell them?") to what media should
be
selected for the executions of their strategies. Consequently, the
author
proposes that the third area be further broken down into two
subsections,
viz. Message and Media. This will avoid any confusion as to what
students
are supposed to address when answering the "How are we going to tell
them?"
If so desired, one can add components such as features, benefits, brand
character, positioning statement and concept under the Message
subsection
to further clarify what students should include when dealing with this
part. To ease matters for students, the three minimum areas which
Moriarty
(1991) suggests for writing strategy, together with the two subsections of
the third area, can be incorporated into a strategy model. This is beyond
the scope of this paper and definitely an area which the author intends to
pursue for future research.
LIMITATIONS OF STUDY
The author in no way suggests that this study is flawless. Considering
that this was a first attempt to measure the effectiveness of student
strategies, the limitations of this study and recommendations on how to
counteract these, follow. The author is aware of three possible
limitations:
Measurement scale
There is no consensus on what components an effective advertising strategy
should include, and it could be argued that the author faulted by
including only the components of the textbook formula as no empirical proof
exists for the validity of this formula. It may thus be argued that
certain components, which are considered to be of great importance, are
not
contained in the textbook formula.
Non-randomization of subjects to groups
It may also be argued that the subjects employed in the study were not
assigned at random to various groups, but were part of accidental
samples
which were intact, as these groups were the classes which the author
taught
during the spring 1994 semester.
Subjects' prior knowledge of strategy
The third possible limitation of this study concerns the knowledge of
advertising strategy possessed by the students who were enrolled in the
advanced copywriting class. Although this was the first time that the
subjects of the advanced copywriting class were exposed to the FCB
sextant
grid, one cannot deny that they had already completed the copywriting
and
layout class where they were taught both the FCB quadrant grid and
textbook
formula. Therefore, one cannot rule out the possibility that the superio
rity of strategies written according to the FCB sextant grid may be
attributed to the fact that this group was familiar with strategy.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The author makes two recommendations pertaining to this study. They deal
with the development of a valid measurement scale for evaluating the
effectiveness of advertising strategy and more testing of the FCB sextant
grid and FCB quadrant grid methods for writing strategy.
Measurement scale
The author strongly recommends that an acceptable and valid measurement
scale for evaluating the effectiveness of advertising strategy be
developed. This should be done in conjunction with the advertising
industry. A possible way of accomplishing this could be to survey the top
100 American advertising agencies to determine what they consider to
be the
minimum components of an effective advertising strategy. Once this has
been determined, it should be clearly stated what the requirements for
these components are to justify a particular score on such a scale.
This
is another area which the author intends to pursue.
FCB sextant grid vs FCB quadrant grid
The author's second recommendation concerns more testing of the FCB
sextant and FCB quadrant grid. This could be done, ideally, by assigning
subjects at random to two groups before any of these subjects had been
taught strategy. Once these groups have been taught to write strategy,
the
same product assignment should be given to these subjects. The strategies
each group writes can then be compared and evaluated on the improved
measurement scale (which was previously discussed) to determine if the
one
method is superior to the other for writing strategies.
CONCLUSION
When Bendinger introduced his strategy formula in his number-one selling
textbook, The Copy Workshop Workbook, he broke new ground in
suggesting how
students could write advertising strategy. The purpose of this paper was
not to diminish the efforts of Bendinger, but rather to acknowledge
his
important contribution to advertising education, and to illustrate how
other avenues could be explored for the ever-important task of students
realizing the importance of writing effective advertising strategy, and
how
to accomplish this via the FCB grid.
Although Vaughn may never have intended the use of the FCB grid as an
educational tool, the author, constantly seeking ways to improve his
teaching, has found that the FCB grid can indeed be used by students to
write advertising strategy. This is supported by this paper which
demonstrated that when students utilize the FCB grid to write strategy, it
results in superior strategies when compared to those written
according to
the textbook formula.
NOTES
1 Wells, W. D. 1989. Planning for R.O.I. Effective Advertising Strategy.
Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
2 Vaughn, R. 1980. How Advertising Works: A Planning Model ... Putting it All
Together. Journal
of Advertising Research, 20(5):27-33.
SOURCES
Foote, Cone & Belding Communications. 1979. How Advertising Works: An FCB
Strategy Planning Model.
Unpublished internal FCB information piece.
Foote, Cone & Belding. 1987. A Guide to the FCB Grid. Unpublished internal
piece.
FCB Reveals its 7-year-old Secret: Gridlogic. 1985. Adweek, 18 March:28.
Albright, J. 1992. Creating the Advertising Message. Mountainview, California:
Mayfield Publishing
Company:17-38.
Bendinger, B. 1988. The Copy Workshop Workbook. Chicago, Illinois: The Copy
Workshop:58-65.
Berger, D. 1985. The FCB Grid. Advertising Research Foundation 31st Annual
Conference and Research
NY
Berger, D. 1986. Theory into Practice: The FCB Grid. European Research,
14(1):35-46.
Jewler, A. J. 1992. Creative Strategy in Advertising. 4th edition. Belmont,
California:
Wadsworth:42-44.
Keppel, G. & Zedeck, S. 1989. Data Analysis for Research Designs. Analysis of
Variance and Multiple
Regression/Correlation Approaches. New York, New York. W. H.
Freeman & Co.
Moriarty, S. E. 1991. Creative Advertising Theory and Practice. 2nd edition.
Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall.:54-58.
Patti, C. H. & Moriarty, S. E. 1990. The Making of Effective Advertising.
Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Ratchford, B. T. 1987. New Insights about the FCB grid. Journal of Advertising
Research,
27(4):24-38.
The Consumer Mind: How to Tailor Advertising Strategies. 1980. Advertising Age,
9 June: 45-46.
Vaughn, R. 1979. How Advertising Works. Worldwide Meeting of FCB Research
Directors, London.
Vaughn, R. 1986. How Advertising Works: A Planning Model Revisited. Journal of
Advertising Research,
26(1):57-66.
Vaughn, R. 1988. How Advertising Works: Taking the FCB Grid into the Third
Dimension. Advertising
Research Foundation Copy Research Workshop, New York, New York.
Wells, W., Burnett, J. & Moriarty, S. 1992. Advertising Principles and Practice.
2nd edition.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Yssel, J. C. & Walchle, M. N. 1992. Using the FCB Grid to Write Advertising
Strategy. Association
for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication: Montreal.
Yssel, J. C. 1994. Using the FCB Grid and the "Lost Quadrants" to Write
Advertising Strategy.
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication.
Yssel, J. C. 1994. An Evaluation of Advertising Strategies Developed According
to the FCB grid and
Bendinger Formula. Unpublished DLitt. et Phil dissertation,
University of South Africa, Pretoria.
Herewith six copies of my paper, "Demonstrating the superiority of the FCB
grid as a tool for students to write effective advertising strategy." I
am submitting this to the Research in Brief category and also include
a
disk copy.
The seventh copy , with all the scribbling on, is for you, as per our
earlier discussion. I will appreciate it if you would take the time to
read it and comment on it. As I said earlier, this has nothing to do
whether the paper is accepted or not; simply a research gesture from one
researcher to another.
Hope to see you in DC!
|
