recall, liking and creativity
Recall, Liking and Creativity in TV Commercials: A New Approach
by
Gerald Stone, Donna Besser and Loran Lewis
Contact:
Gerald Stone
School of Journalism
Southern Illinois University Carbondale
Carbondale, IL 62901-6601
phone: (618) 453-3274
[log in to unmask]
Submitted to the Research Papers competition of the Advertising Division of
AEJMC for the AEJMC Convention Aug. 4-7, 1999, in New Orleans, LA.
Recall, Liking and Creativity in TV Commercials: A New Approach
ABSTRACT
Three advertising effectiveness dimensions were linked in a local random
telephone survey asking respondents' most disliked or liked commercial. The
survey included describing the commercials, brand preference, television viewing
hours and demographics. Seniors in advertising judged the ads' creativity.
Among many findings related to past research was the suggestion that people
"carry a set" of liked and disliked commercials. The study's major contribution
may be its novel way of identifying memorable ads and assessing creativity.
Recall, Liking and Creativity in TV Commercials: A New Approach
This study focuses on three aspects that should be at the center of
investigation about advertising: 1) its memorability or recall, 2) the
relationship between recall and likability, and 3) whether recall and likability
are linked with an ad's creativity.
The connection between creativity, likability and recall would seem to be the
essence of what advertising is all about: creating likable and memorable
commercials as a prelude to selling products and services. There is a wealth of
research on these essential elements, but it is not at all clear that ads are
memorable; that likable ads are more memorable than the disliked; or that a
creative ad is either remembered or liked.
This research considers the three elements by asking a community random sample
whether they remember a liked and disliked television commercial and to describe
the commercial. A measure of creativity is used to compare the liked and
disliked ads. Predictor variables include television viewing frequency and
demographics; brands are used as control variables.
While studying the interplay of three advertising measures may seem
complicated, the study is really quite straightforward. It is too basic to
offer definitive answers, but this is the first known study to draw the three
essential elements together as groundwork for future research.
Review of Literature
The expectation in this study was that to be a superior sales tool, a
commercial should be liked or disliked enough to register in a viewer's easy
recall and that a more creative commercial is more likely to register. Past
research on the three areas of recall, liking and creativity will be reviewed
separately prior to considering studies that merge two of the areas.
Recall of advertising. Memorability is measured as the ability to recall an
ad, tested by a variety of methods1 but primarily by experimental procedures.
Both the methods used and the outcomes derived are somewhat controversial,
although recall is conceded to be a necessary condition of advertising
effectiveness.2
An extensive body of research has accumulated over three decades that indicates
both disliked and liked ads are memorable and result in recall. In fact, there
is considerable debate in the literature about whether an irritating commercial
has higher recall than a favorite commercial. This is an inconclusive area of
study, but one that narrowly results in the expectation that an irritating or
disliked commercial will be more memorable than a well liked commercial.3
One of the confounding variables in recall is the brand, which is considered to
be of such powerful influence that researchers go to considerable lengths to try
to control brand effects, usually with mixed results.4
According to one review of extensive industry and psychological research, age
is negatively associated with recall of advertising: younger people have higher
recall than older adults.5
Liking advertising. When it comes to liking television commercials, Americans
say they don't. The studies show that the public claims to dislike television
ads generally,6 but is more favorable to individual commercials.7 The
preponderance of studies says liking the ad predicts liking the product,8
although cause-and-effect is unclear,9 and earlier research seemed to show that
irritating ads were more effective.10
Theories about likability suggest that if viewers like an ad they are more
likely to pay attention and respond to the message, or if they like an ad they
will associate more positive feelings toward the brand. Research indicates both
processes occur and are intertwined.11
Regardless of the process taking place, liking a commercial is thought to
equate with the ad's effectiveness.12 Studies generally support this concept,
although both positive and negative (irritating/silly) attributes of an ad were
related to liking and effectiveness.13 The research conclusion is that liking
is only one of many elements of ad effectiveness,14 but a potentially important
one in building brand loyalty.15
Creativity. The concept is an ephemeral quality in judging advertising that
extends from aesthetic values to whether the ad sells the product. Advertising
professionals themselves judge differently depending on their organizational
role.16 Even those who teach creative strategies rely on varied approaches
borrowed from psychology but concede that the guidelines are only suggestions.17
Studies that come closest to measuring creativity may be those that focus on
treatment type or executional styles, however these use recall, comprehension
and persuasion rather than measures of creative quality.18
Another stream of research deals with the psychological impact of message
elements such as music19 or attention-arresting attributes such as shot
length,20 or dramatic scripts,21 although creativity of the message is implied
rather than analyzed.
Some analysis is offered in research on using "absurdities" in advertising,
said to be a variation on what is meant by creativity,22 and some analysis links
creativity with ad expenditures or product sales,23 but none of these approaches
attempts to directly assess creativity.
One attempt that used national creative awards as a measure matched creativity
with marketing effectiveness and found that people judge commercials based on
their appeal to self-image.24 This research supported creative designers'
theory that an ad's positive effect is transferred to the brand.25
In all, the studies of creativity are limited and abstract, suggesting that
creativity is an advertising dimension in need of additional investigation.
Studies that link two of the concepts. One study used measures of liking,
recall, attention, communication of message, brand name and product sales. The
researchers reported that liking is related with attention and recall, but not
to communication of message or recognition of brand.26 However, liking the
commercial was linked with intent to purchase the brand and persuasion scores.
These researchers concluded that liking is a very general measure, but ads that
are liked are more likely to be noticed and remembered.
A decade-long in-market tracking study linked ad awareness with likability and
found a direct relationship between the two.27 The researcher considered
several psychological models combining recall and liking to predict ad
effectiveness, and added a new conceptualization derived from his data.
One study of print media ads drew a connection between recall, liking and
creativity, however, the creativity measure was asking respondents if they found
the ad interesting. Even so, interesting ads were directly related to liked ads
and to recall and recognition measures.28 But another point of view is that
creativity has little to do with either liking, recall or product sales.29
Hypotheses
The literature review of commercial recall, liking and creativity led to these
hypotheses:
1) People are able to recall a favorite and disliked commercial, and they are
able to describe those ads.
2) People are more likely to recall disliked commercials than those they like.
3) People will correctly name the product in both their favorite and most
disliked commercial.
4) Recall of the commercial is associated with liking or disliking the brand.
5) Those who recall a disliked commercial will also recall a liked commercial.
6) Recall of both favorite and disliked commercials is associated with hours of
watching television.
7) Recall of commercials is inversely related to age.
8) Recall of favorite or disliked commercials will be the same regardless of
race, education, income or gender.
9) Favorite commercials are likely to be more creative.
Methodology
About 40 students in a senior-level advertising research methods course used
the survey as the semester group project during the fall 1998. After discussion
of research principles to assess public perception of television commercials, a
12-item questionnaire was prepared, pretested and revised.
The questionnaire asked hours per day of television viewing; if subjects had a
disliked and/or favorite commercial along with a brief description of the
commercial; and five demographic items: age, ethnicity, education, income and
gender.
Some thought went into whether the disliked or the liked commercial should be
asked first. The pre-test alternated the two questions, with the result that
both received equal responses. Because past studies suggest that irritating
commercials would be better remembered, disliked ads was asked first.30
The study was a telephone sample of residences with toll-free listings taken
from the current edition of the local directory. Each number was selected using
a four-step random process, omitting business listings, and with last-digit
replacement. The method has been used frequently with acceptable results
although asking to speak to the adult resident with the most recent birthday31
produced a 60% female sample.
Students made calls Sunday through Tuesday evening, Oct. 4-6, 1998, while being
closely supervised by the course instructor and a graduate teaching assistant.
Survey forms took less than five minutes, averaging about three minutes, with no
problems noted in administration. The survey had a completion rate of 70%, with
a sample of 418 and a margin of error of q5%.32
As seniors in advertising, the students had completed two previous courses in
designing ads and were currently enrolled in a campaigns course. They were
qualified to judge the creativity of television commercials named by survey
respondents. Groups of students were assigned to view the commercials named and
to assess the ads for creativity using the following standard: "Is the
commercial creative? Does it attract and hold attention, and effectively
portray the product/service? If you had produced the commercial, would you be
proud of your work?"
Obviously, creativity is a subjective precept, and even college seniors in
advertising might be influenced by a host of biases toward the brand. There was
some disagreement about the creativity of some of the commercials. Thus, to be
placed in the "creative" category, students had to agree overwhelmingly that the
ad was creative. If the groups had mixed feelings about a commercial, it was
placed in the "non-creative" category.
Findings
Table 1 describes survey frequencies and addresses the first few hypotheses.
The sample was able to recall and describe both favorite and disliked
commercials. Survey items were: "Is there a current television commercial that
you find really annoying, one that you particularly dislike?" and "Is there a
current television commercial that you enjoy watching when it comes on, one that
you particularly like?" These items use classic uncued recall, considered an
excellent predictor of an ad's effectiveness.33
A substantial 43% named a disliked ad, and 65% of this group could describe the
ad. A majority of 58% named an ad they liked, and 91% of this group described
the ad. Hypothesis 1, that people are able to recall a favorite and disliked
commercial, and they will be able to describe those ads, is supported.
Unfortunately, the study is not a convincing test of whether people remember
disliked commercials more than those they like. Despite the pre-test's outcome
of recall balance, a better approach would have required a split-form survey in
which the sequence of the like-dislike questions was alternated. In this study,
recall of favorite commercials might have been increased after subjects
considered "disliked" first question. Still, the results strongly suggest that
people recall commercials they like more than those they dislike, and hypothesis
2 is rejected.
No data are presented for hypothesis 3 because the data were too consistent to
merit coding. Almost every subject who named a liked or disliked commercial
also named the brand or service, and almost every subject got the brand correct.
Hypothesis 3 is accepted. These findings are a clear indication that if a
person can name a favorite or particularly disliked commercial, the person has
already associated the commercial with the product or service advertised. While
the finding doesn't answer the chicken-and-egg question of brand versus ad
influence, it supports past research that the two are inextricably coupled.
To answer the chicken-and-egg question, a follow-up item was asked after
subjects named a liked or disliked commercial. They were asked: "Is this your
favorite (or most disliked) brand?" Only 12% of respondents naming a disliked
commercial said they disliked the brand. A much larger 29% of respondents
naming a liked commercial said they liked the brand. These percents are not
very convincing, and hypothesis 4 is rejected. This finding contradicts past
research that clearly links brand preference with attitudes toward commercials.
Moving beyond descriptive data, Table 2 shows the outcomes of chi-square and
ANOVA analysis in regard to the remaining hypotheses.
First is the finding of similar recall: If a person can recall a disliked ad,
the person is also more likely to recall a liked ad (p < .01). Hypothesis 5 is
accepted indicating that commercial recall ability lies within the person, and
that about two-thirds of those who named a disliked ad also named one they
liked.
Hours of watching television was strongly related to recall of both a favorite
and a disliked commercial. Those who named either type ad watched television
more, supporting hypothesis 6.
Hypotheses 7 deals with types of people who recalled ads. The literature says
that younger people should be much better at recall than older people. This
hypothesis was rejected with only a mean one-year age difference between the two
groups for disliked ads and a two-year difference for liked ads.
Hypothesis 8 predicted that recall of liked or disliked ads would be the same
regardless of race, education, income or gender, and this hypothesis is
supported.
The last hypothesis uses the measure of a commercial's creativity as determined
by advertising students in the senior-level research course. Table 3 shows that
70% of the liked commercials were judged creative versus only 46% of the
disliked commercials. Hypothesis 9 was supported.
Liked vs. Disliked Ads Findings
Because the study includes the respondents' description of the actual
commercial with the brand name and the students' creativity judgment, the list
of commercials is presented in Table 4 for further insight. Among general
observations are:
1) There is much more agreement about liked commercials than disliked. Four
brands account for 44 mentions among the liked; only two brands account for 19
mentions among the disliked (other than "political" commercials). This suggests
that only a handful of commercials will be recalled frequently as being
particularly liked or disliked.
2) The two lists are nearly equal in terms of different commercials named. The
liked list contains 19 single-mentioned brands; the disliked list contains 23.
This finding may imply that many different commercials stand out in people's
minds as being particularly liked and disliked.
3) Several of the commercials appear on both the liked and disliked lists,
which may enforce the view that the public becomes irritated with favored
commercials after time.
4) Both lists contain a wide variety of products and services, although most of
these are well known national brands.
5) The only "local" commercial on the liked list was for Cubs baseball; several
of the disliked commercials were local productions.
6) Commercials deemed creative appear on both lists, although the liked list
contains more. Also, creative commercials run the entire gamut of products and
services.
7) Some products aren't included on either list, such as cleaning products,
medicines, travel, real estate, banks and brokerages. Fast-food and beverage
commercials dominate both lists.34
8) Something that is less obvious from the lists is that commercials featuring
children and animals appear frequently on the liked list and are virtually
absent from the disliked list.35
Additional observations might be teased from these lists based on a detailed
analysis of the content of commercials aired during the late summer and early
fall of 1998, but such an analysis is beyond the scope of this study.
Discussion
In trying to tie commercial recall and likability with creativity, the study
adds clarity to some of the past research, raises some doubts and offers a
direction for future investigations.
Limitations are obvious: 1) the recall measure used is gross rather than
refined, and asking for memorable commercials not comparable with usual recall
procedures; 2) the sample is from a single-shot, local survey that is relatively
small; 3) the analysis is simple rather than complex, although sufficient for
the study's intent; and,
4) while the measure of creativity is conservative, it is a new and
difficult-to-replicate approach.
Yet with all of these limits, the study certainly shows that people are able to
recall, describe and correctly name the product in both a liked and disliked
commercial (at a time when no single commercial could be described as dominating
people's attention, such as "Where's the beef?").
The finding raises the prospect that people may "carry a set" of several
particularly liked and disliked commercials at all times, and that surveys might
be a viable method for testing which ads get through the marketing maze.
Assessing these "sets" over time might provide direction for creating more
penetrating commercials.
In this survey, liked ads were recalled more than the disliked. Future
research should retest this finding by alternating the disliked-liked questions
to resolve the issue of which type of commercial people remember more.
Regardless of the likability factor, people accurately associate the brand with
a memorable commercial. However, they are much more likely to name the brand in
their liked commercial, which suggests that an appealing commercial is the
better marketing vehicle.
This study's findings also imply that commercial recall is not merely the
result of liking or disliking the product. Instead, people remember the
commercial (and the product) regardless of their feelings toward the brand.
This is an implication that an unknown product or service may gain quick
recognition through a particularly memorable commercial. Additionally, a
less-known brand might rise in recognition against its competitors as a result
of a memorable commercial.
The study adds weight to the view that commercials appeal or irritate across
demographic groups. Apparently, the ability to recall memorable ads is about
the same regardless of ethnicity, education, income or gender. This supports
the notion that people "carry the set" of liked and disliked commercials about
equally, with the obvious exception that more frequent television viewers are
much more likely to carry the set.
The study contradicts past research that age is related to recall, as recall
was measured in this study. The suggestion is that people's set of liked and
disliked commercials is a different concept from the ability to recall details
or number of commercials. From a methodological standpoint, "memorability," as
used in this study, may be a better measure of a commercial's effectiveness than
recall.
The outcome that linked creativity to recall should gratify ad agency
production staffs. Seventy percent of the liked commercials were deemed
creative versus only 46% of the disliked. There is a much better chance of
breaking through the clutter with a creative offering, according to this study.
Finally, the caveat of "according to this study" is an important caution
because several of its procedures are unique and some findings contradict past
research. These findings cannot be considered definitive; they merely present a
new direction of research linking commercial recall, likability and creativity.
Notes
1. Rik G.M. Pieters and Tammo H.A. Bijmolt (1997). "Consumer memory for
television advertising: A field study of duration, serial position, and
competition effects," Journal of Consumer Research 23(4):362-372. An
experimental example is: Barrie Gunter, Adrian Furnham and Christopher Beeson
(1997). "Recall of television advertisements as a function of program
evaluation," Journal of Psychology 31(5):541-553.
2. Joel S. Dubow (1994). "Point of view: Recall revisited: Recall redux,"
Journal of Advertising Research 34(3):92-108. See also: Harold L. Ross Jr.
(1994). "'Recall revisited: Recall redux' - More reactions," Journal of
Advertising Research 34(3):109-111.
3. Basil G. Englis (1990). "Consumer emotional reactions to television
advertising and their effects on message recall," in Stuart J. Agres, Julie A.
Edell and Tony M. Dubistsky, eds. Emotion in Advertising: Theoretical and
practical explorations. New York: Quorum Books, pp. 231-253. See also in
Emotion in Advertising, Thomas J. Page Jr., Esther Thorson and Maria Papas
Heide, "The memory impact of commericals varying in emotional appeal and product
involvement," pp. 255-268; Chistopher P. Puto and Robert W. Hoyer,
"Transformational advertising: Current state of the art," pp. 69-80.
4. Cornelia Pechmann and David W. Stewart (1990). "The effects of comparative
advertising on attention, memory, and purchase intentions," Journal of Consumer
Research 17 (September), 180-191. See also: H. Rao Unnava and Deepak
Sirdeshmukh (1994). "Reducing competitive ad interference," Journal of Marking
Research 31(3):403-411.
5. Joel S. Dubow (1995). "Advertising recognition and recall by age - including
teens," Journal of Advertising Research 35(5):55-60. See also: Rose L. Johnson
and Cathy J. Cobb-Walgren, "Aging and the problem of television clutter,"
Journal of Advertising Research 34(4):54-62.
6. The Marschalk Company 1980. "A study to evaluate consumer attitudes toward
television commercials," unpublished paper cited in David Walker and Tony M.
Dubitsky, "Why Liking Matters," Journal of Advertising Research (May/June 1994),
p. 11. See also: Banwari Mittal (1994). "Public assessment of TV advertising:
Faint praise and harsh criticism," Journal of Advertising Research 34(1):35-53.
7. Alexander L. Biel (1985). Does likeable TV advertising help sell the product?
San Francisco: The Ogilvy Center for Research and Development. See also: Jan
Stapel (1991). "Like the ad...but does it interest me?" Admap (April).
8. Esther Thorson (1991). "Likability: 10 years of academic research," in
Transcript proceedings: Eighth annual advertising research foundation copy
research workshop. New York: Advertising Research Foundation.
9. Linda F. Alwitt, Suzeanne B. Benet and Robert E. Pitts (1993). "Temporal
aspects of TV commercials influence viewers' online evaluations," Journal of
Advertising Research 33(3):9-22. See also: Thomas J. Madden and Icek Ajzen
(1991). "Affective cues in persuasion: An assessment of causal mediation,"
Marketing Letters 2(4):359-366.
10. Rena Bartos (1981). "Ads that irritate may erode trust in advertised
brands," Harvard Business Review 59(4):138-140.
16. Thomas J. Madden, Chris T. Allen and Jacquelyn L. Twible (1988). "Attitude
toward the ad: An assessment of diverse measurement indices under different
processing 'sets,'" Journal of Marketing Research 25(3):242-252.
12. David A. Aaker and Douglas M. Stayman (1990). "Measuring audience
perceptions of commercials and relating them to ad impact," Journal of
Advertising Research 30(4):7-17. See also: Alexander L. Biel and Carol A.
Bridgwater (1990). "Attributes of likable television commercials," Journal of
Advertising Research 30(3):38-44; Cyndee Miller (1991). "Study says 'likability'
surfaces as measure of TV ad success," Marketing News (Jan. 7), pp. 6, 14.
13. Steven P. Brown and Douglas M. Stayman (1992). "Antecedents and consequences
of attitude toward the ad: A meta-analysis," Journal of Consumer Research
19(1):34-51.
14. Nigel S. Hollis (1995). "Like it or not, liking is not enough," Journal of
Advertising Research 35(5):7-18.
15. Margaret F. Callcott and Barbara J. Phillips (1996). "Elves make good
cookies: Creating likable spokes-character advertising," Journal of Advertising
Research 36(4):73-78.
16. Elizabeth C. Hirschman (1989). "Role-based models of advertising creation
and production," Journal of Advertising 18(4):42-53.
17. Don E. Schultz and Beth E. Barnes (1995). Strategic advertising campaigns,
4th ed. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Business Books, pp. 177-189. See also: Huntley
Baldwin (1994). How to create effective TV commercials, 2nd ed. Lincolnwood, IL:
NTC Business Books._
18. Henry A. Lasky, Richard J. Fox and Melvin R. Crask (1994). "Investigating
the impact of executional style on television commercial effectiveness," Journal
of Advertising Research 34(6):9-16. See also: David W. Stewart and Scott Koslow
(1989). "Executional factors and advertising effectiveness: A replication,"
Journal of Advertising 18(3):21-32; Leonard N. Reid, W. Ronald Lane, Leila S.
Wenthe and Otto W. Smith (1985). "Methods of presentation used in Clio-winning
television commercials," Journalism Quarterly 62(4):553-558.
19. David W. Stewart and Girish N. Punj (1998). "Effects of using a nonverbal
(musical) cue on recall and playback of television advertising: Implications for
advertising tracking," Journal of Business Research 42:39-51.
20. James MacLachlan and Michael Logan (1993). "Camera shot length in TV
commercials and their memorability," Journal of Advertising Research
33(2):57-60.
21. John Deighton and Stephen J. Hoch (1993). "Teaching emotion with drama
advertising," in Andrew A. Mitchell, ed. Advertising exposure, memory, and
choice. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 261-281.
22. Richard C. Maddock and Richard L. Fulton (1996). "Absurdities: How to
produce memorable and motivational advertising and marketing campaigns," in
Marketing to the Mind: Right brain strategies for advertising and marketing.
Westport, CT: Quorum Books, pp. 71-80.
23. Jack A. Bell (1992). "Creativity, TV commercial popularity, and advertising
expenditures," International Journal of Advertising 11(2):165-172.
24. Arthur J. Kover, Stephen M. Goldberg and William L. James (1995).
"Creativity vs. effectiveness? An integrating classification for advertising,"
Journal of Advertising Research 35(5):29-38.
25. Arthur J. Kover (1995). "Copywriters' implicit theories of communication: An
exploration," Journal of Consumer Research 21(4):30-45.
26. David Walker and Tony M. Dubitsky (1994), op. cit.
27. Erik du Plessis (1994). "Understanding and using likability," Journal of
Advertising Research 34(5):RC3-10.
28. Jan Stapel (1998). "Recall and recognition: A very close relationship,"
Journal of Advertising Research 38(3):41-45.
29. Richard Evans (1998). "Let everybody know your (brand) name: Creativity and
clearly naming the marketer can co-exist in advertising," Advertising Age (Aug.
17), p. 27. See also: "Making a mint: Those cheesy Mentos ads drive America
mental," People Weekly (Nov. 25, 1996), p. 64.
30. Basil G. Englis (1990), op. cit.
31. Paul J. Lavrakas (1993). Telephone survey methods: Sampling, selection, and
supervision, 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 111-113. See also: James H.
Frey and Sabine Mertens Oishi (1995). How to conduct interviews by telephone and
in person. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, p. 61.
32. Completion rate figures are comparable to those reported for similar
random-digit dialing sampling procedures. See Paul J. Lavrakas, (1993). op.
cit., pp. 87-91. Most researchers today use only the completed interviews,
refusals and ineligible categories, placing this telephone survey's sample among
the higher completion rates. Lavrakas reported completion rates for local
surveys in 1991 and 1992 at 34.2% of all numbers. The comparable figure for
this survey was 32.1%. A 1995 survey reported a completion rate of 57.4%,
comparable to this survey's 58.6%. See: Katherine N. Kinnick, Dean M. Krugman
and Glen T. Cameron (1996). "Compassion fatigue: Communication and burnout
toward social problems," Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly
73(3):687-707.
33. Russell I. Haley and Allan L. Baldinger (1991). "The ARF Copy Research
Validity Project," Journal of Advertising Research 31(2):11-32.
34. Bell (1992), op. cit.
35. Edward A. Robinson (1997). "Frogs, bears, and orgasms: Think zany if you
want to reach today's consumers," Fortune (June 9), pp. 153-156.
Table 1: Sample frequencies with hypotheses implications
n Percent
(418) or Mean
Named particularly irritating, disliked ad 175 43%
Could describe disliked ad 114 65%
Brand you particularly dislike? 14 12%
Named ad enjoy watching, particularly liked 233 58%
Could describe liked ad 211 91%
Your favorite brand? 61 29%
Television hours watch per day:
less than 1 hour 52 12%
1 hour 47 11
2 hours 118 28
3 hours 82 20
4 hours 56 14
5 or more hours 63 15
Ethnicity:
Caucasian 333 80%
African-American 52 13
Other 29 7
Education:
some high school or high school degree 79 19%
some college or technical school 165 40
college graduate 97 23
post graduate degree 73 18
Income level:
below $20,000 123 32%
$20,000 to $39,999 103 27
$40,000 to $60,000 96 25
above $60,000 63 16
Gender:
male 170 41%
female 245 59
Mean age 410 40.3
Table 2: Chi-square and ANOVA data tests
Named Liked Ad
Yes No p
Named Disliked Ad
Yes 67% 33% <.01
No 51% 49%
Mean Hours Per
Day Watch TV
Named Disliked Ad
Yes 2.92 <.02
No 2.54
Named Liked Ad
Yes 2.92 <.01
No 2.46
Mean Age
Named Disliked Ad
Yes 40.9 n.s.
No 40.0
Named Liked Ad
Yes 39.5 n.s.
No 41.6
Named Named
Liked Ad Disliked Ad
Ethnicity:
Caucasian 57% 42%
African-American 62% 37% n.s.
Other 68% 48%
Education:
Some High School or H.S. Grad 59% 38%
Some College or Tech. School 61% 47% n.s.
College Graduate 54% 40%
Post Graduate Degree 58% 41%
Income:
Below $20,000 58% 43%
$20,000 to $39,999 48% 44% n.s.
$40,000 to $60,000 66% 37%
Above $60,000 64% 46%
Gender:
Male 58% 42% n.s.
Female 59% 43%
Table 3: Creativity by liked or disliked ad named, described and rated
Named Liked Named Disliked
Commercial, Commercial,
Described It & Described It &
Ad was Rated Ad was Rated p
(n=170) (n=82)
Creative 70% 46%
<.001
Not Creative 30 54
Table 4: Liked and disliked ads, frequency of mention, and creative (*) rating
Liked Disliked
*Hardee's (13) *Hardee's (11)
*Taco Bell (11) Political commercials (10)
*Bud Lite frogs (11) *Taco Bell (8)
*Miller beer (9) *Miller beer (4)
Nike (6) Insurance "eagleman" (2)
any with kids and animals (6) Loan commercial (2)
Grape juice (3) beer commercials (2)
*ESPN sports (3) McDonald's (2)
*Kitty litter (2)
*Pepsi (2) AT&T
Denny's (2) Arby's
*Bud Lite
Burger King Burger King
Bush beer Cadillac
*Coke Car dealer (named local)
*Coors Lite Dairy Queen
Cubs baseball *Drunk - PSA's
Disney World Fed-Ex
Edy's ice-cream *Gatorade
Folgers Hoover
*Gap Long John Silver's
Hallmark cards Luckytown lottery
Hostess MCI
Kentucky Fried Chicken Mr. Food (local television show)
Levi's *Nike
MTV Numetta ice-cream
Michelob Light Piccola
*Snickers Red Roof Inn
*Southwest Airlines Snack Wheats
Volkswagen Steak & Shake
Women's NBA Toyota "Everyday People"
*Welch's Jelly
baby diapers automobile
beer commercials without sound
car commercials credit card for bad credit
deodorant diapers
raccoon local car dealers (general)
local stores
talking animals
testimonials
*judged as creative
The order for both sets of commercials is: 1) arrangement by number of mentions
if more than one; 2) alphabetical if brand is named; and 3) alphabetical
arrangement by category.
|
