Recent debate on comparative advertising has focused on its ethical rather than its effectiveness dimension. A laboratory experiment was performed to assess the communications-effectiveness of a comparative advertisement in relation to its “brand X” counterpart. Results indicate that though a comparative advertising format can enhance message recall to some extent, it also can result in some loss of effectiveness from consumer perceptions of low credibility of its claims.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
“Advertising: Naming Names,” Time Magazine (August 20, 1965); “The Four A's and Derogatory Ads,” Advertising Age (February 28, 1966), 16; “Naming Competitors in Ads,” Advertising Age (March 21, 1966), 20; “Be Hard on Comparative Ads: Roberts to Four A's,” Advertising Age (November 19, 1973), 1; “Four A's Does an About-Face in Comparative Ad Guidelines,” Television/Radio Age (April 15, 1974), 49; “Code Review Board Adds More Teeth to TV Rules for Comparison Ads,” Broadcasting (October 7, 1974), 61; “NBC Sets Guidelines for Comparative Ad Complaints,” Advertising Age (January 6, 1975), 8; “NARB Rules Against Schick Shaver Ads, Cites ‘Implications’,” Advertising Age (December 31, 1973), 1.
2.
BochnerS. and InskoC. “Communicator Discrepancy, Source Credibility, and Influence,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4 (December1966), 614–21.
3.
BowenLawrence and ChaffeeSteven H. “Product Involvement and Pertinent Advertising Appeals,” unpublished working paper, University of Wisconsin, October1973.
4.
“Comparative Ads Get Hit in First Big Test, Over Schick Campaign,”The Wall Street Journal (December1973), 1. (No author.)
5.
ConoverW. J.Practical Nonparametric Statistics.New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1971.
6.
CoxDonald F., RiskED.Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior.Boston: Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, 1967,390–1.
7.
DiamondSidney A. “Chanel Wins Only Partial Victory in Unfair Competition Case,” Advertising Age (November 5, 1973), 54.
8.
DoughertyPhilip H. “Calling Brand X by Its Real Name,” The New York Times (January 21, 1973), 15.
9.
DoughertyPhilip H. “Advertising: Comparison Issue,” The New York Times (November 14, 1973), 61.
10.
EngelJames F., KollatDavid L. and BlackwellRoger D.Consumer Behavior, 2nd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973.
11.
FestingerLeon and AronsonElliot. “The Arousal and Reduction of Dissonance in Social Contexts,” in CartwrightD. and ZanderA., eds., Group Dynamics: Research and Theory, 2nd ed. New York: Harper and Row, 1960, 214–31.
12.
FestingerLeon and MaccobyNathan. “On Resistance to Persuasive Communication,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68 (November1964), 359–66.
13.
GoodmanLeo. “Multivariate Analysis of Qualitative Data: Interactions Among Multiple Classifications,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 65 (March1970), 226–56.
14.
GreenbergAlan. “Is Communication Research Really Worthwhile?” Journal of Marketing, 31 (January1967), 48–50.
15.
GreenwaldAnthony G. “Cognitive Learning, Cognitive Response to Persuasion, and Attitude Change,” in GreenwaldA. G., BrockT. C. and OstromT. W., eds., Psychological Foundations of Attitudes.New York: Academic Press, 1968.
16.
GreenwaldAnthony G. and SakumuraJosephs. “Attitude and Selective Learning: Where Are the Phenomena of Yesteryear?,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7 (November1967), 387–97.
17.
HaskinsJ. B.How to Evaluate Mass Communications.New York: Advertising Research Foundation, 1968.
18.
HowardJohn A. and HulbertJames. Advertising and the Public Interest.Chicago: Crain Communications, Inc., 1973, 91.
19.
HowardJohn A. and ShethJagdish N.The Theory of Buyer Behavior.New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1969, 181.
20.
JohnsonH. H. “Some Effects of Discrepancy Level on Responses to Negative Information About One's Self,” Sociometry, 29 (March1966), 52–66.
21.
JonesEdward E. and AneshanselJane. “The Learning and Utilization of Contravaluant Material,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 53 (August1956), 27–33.
22.
JonesEdward E. and KohlerRika. “The Effects of Plausibility on the Learning of Controversial Statements,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 57 (December1958), 315–20.
23.
KerinRoger, WoodwardWayne and ReevesJackie. “TRI-CHI: A Program for Interpreting Three-Dimensional Contingency Tables Via Log Linear Models,” Journal of Marketing Research, 12 (February1975), 82.
24.
KerlingerFred. Foundations of Behavioral Research.New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964, 635–41.
25.
KristoffersonA. B. “Word Recognition, Meaningfulness, and Familiarity,” Perceptual and Motor Skills, 7 (March1957), 219–20.
26.
LevinJ. M. and MurphyF. “The Learning and Forgetting of Controversial Material,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38 (October1943), 507–17.
27.
McGuireWilliam J. “Inducing Resistance to Persuasion: Some Contemporary Approaches,” in BerkowitzL., ed., Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 1. New York: Academic Press, 1964, 191–229.
28.
McGuireWilliam J. “Nature of Attitudes and Attitude Change,” in LindseyG. and AronsonE., eds., Handbook of Social Psychology, rev. ed. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1968.
29.
StudiesPolitz Media. The Rochester Study.New York: Saturday Evening Post, 1960.
30.
RayMichael L. “The Present and Potential Linkages Between the Microtheoretical Notions of Behavioral Science and the Problems of Advertising,” paper presented at the TIMS/University of Chicago Symposium on Behavioral and Management Science in Marketing, 1969.
31.
RayMichael L. and SawyerAlan G. “Repetition in Media Models: A Laboratory Technique,” Journal of Marketing Research, 8 (February1971), 29–9.
32.
ReadCampbell B. and KerinRoger A. “Interpreting Three-Dimensional Contingency Tables Via Log-Linear Models,” unpublished paper, Southern Methodist University, 1975.
33.
RobertsJack. “Comparative Advertising … I'm O.K…. You're Not O.K.,” speech delivered to American Association of Advertising Agencies, New York, November 15, 1973.
34.
SchwartzEugene. Break Through Advertising: How to Write Ads that Shatter Traditions and Sales Records.Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1966.
35.
SettleRobert B. and GoldenLinda. “Attribution Theory and Advertising Credibility,” Journal of Marketing Research, 11 (May1974), 181–5.
36.
“So Long, Brand X—Naming Names of Rivals in Ads is Catching on But Spurs Controversy,”The Wall Street Journal, 54 (December 26, 1973), 1. (No author.)
37.
StarchDaniel. Principles of Advertising.Chicago: A. W. Shaw Company, 1926, 413–7.
38.
TannenbaumPercy H. “The Indexing Process in Communication,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 3 (Summer1955), 292–302.
39.
TylerWilliam D. “Is Competitive Comparison Really Bad in Advertising? Reform with Care,” Advertising Age, (March 14, 1966), 61.
40.
WallaceW. P. “Review of the Historical, Empirical, and Theoretical Status of the Von Restorff Phenomenon,” Psychological Bulletin, 63 (June1965), 421.
41.
WalyPatricia and CookStuart W. “Attitude as a Determinant of Learning and Memory: A Failure to Confirm,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4 (September1966), 280–8.
42.
WilkieWilliam L. and FarrisPaul. “Comparison Advertising: Problems and Potential,” Journal of Marketing, 39 (October1975), 7–15.
43.
WinterFrederick W. “A Laboratory Experiment of Individual Attitude Response to Advertising Exposure,” Journal of Marketing Research, 10 (May1973), 130–40.
44.
WrightPeter L. “The Cognitive Processes Mediating Acceptance of Advertising,” Journal of Marketing Research, 10 (February1973), 53–62.
