Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
2011-12
Lia Zarantonello
IESEG School of Management (LEM-CNRS)
Kamel Jedidi
Columbia Business School, Columbia University
Bernd H. Schmitt
Columbia Business School, Columbia University
Functional and experiential routes to persuasion:
Paris-La Défense cedex, France, phone number: +33 1 5591 1105, fax: +33 1 4775 9375,
l.zarantonello@ieseg.fr.
Kamel Jedidi is the John A. Howard Professor of Business, Columbia Business School,
Columbia University, 3022 Broadway, 510 Uris Hall, New York NY 10027, USA, phone
Business School, Columbia University, 3022 Broadway, 510 Uris Hall, New York NY 10027,
1
Functional and experiential routes to persuasion:
Using data from 256 TV commercial tests conducted by a multinational FMCG company in 23
countries, we find that the experiential route drives persuasion in developed markets. In
emerging markets, however, it is the functional route that drives persuasion and, unexpectedly,
also influences affect. Moreover, the data reveal that the functional route is more important in
driving persuasion in emerging Asian markets relative to other emerging markets. We discuss
2
1. Introduction
The advertising industry in emerging markets (EMs) is of increasing importance. After the
recession following the late-2000s financial crisis, global advertising spending is increasing
again, but this increase largely stems from emerging countries in the Asia Pacific, Middle
(www.nielsen.com), EMs will continue to lead global advertising spending in the years to come.
Fast moving consumer goods (FMCGs) represent the category with the highest expected rate of
growth.
understand how advertising works in these markets. Prior research has developed general models
of how consumers process advertisements. However, this body of knowledge has been created
almost exclusively through research conducted in high income, industrialized nations (Burgess &
Steenkamp, 2006). The question that arises is then whether and how consumers in EMs process
ads differently from consumers in developed markets (DMs). We address this question by
compare consumer ad processing in EMs with DMs and also identify differences within EMs.
The paper is organized as follows. We first review the information processing literature
in advertising with a special focus on the differences between EMs and DMs. We then describe
the data we use to address our research question. Next, we present our modeling approach and
discuss the empirical findings. We conclude the paper by making recommendations for
advertising in EMs, discussing the limitations of our research and suggesting directions for future
research.
3
2. Conceptual framework and hypothesis development
At a broad level, marketing researchers have created an information processing framework that
describes the advertising persuasion process. In this framework, the advertising message as input
generates an internal consumer response which, in turn, affects consumer behavior, the output of
this process (Vakratsas & Ambler, 1999). According to early models, advertising results in
behaviors such as product purchase, trial, and adoption (Barry & Howard, 1990). Later models,
however, suggest measuring its impact in terms of attitude formation and change (Copper &
Croyle, 1984; Tesser & Shaffer, 1990; Olson & Zanna, 1993; Petty & Wegener, 1997).
Most research has concentrated on the link between type of ad message and internal
response. Broadly speaking, an advertising message can be described in terms of its rational and
experiential components (see, among others, Heath 2011). The rational component of an ad
emphasizes the features and benefits of a product, and aims at generating a cognitive consumer
response (e.g., evaluation) (Abernethy & Franke, 1996). On the other hand, the experiential
component of an ad evokes sensations, feelings and emotions, and imaginations that may result
in an affective response (e.g., liking) (Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982; Schmitt, 1999; Brakus,
Schmitt, & Zarantonello, 2009). It should be noted that almost all ads (and certainly the ones
used in our empirical studies) include both functional and experiential elements to some degree.
Moreover, the two approaches (i.e., targeting cognitions with the functional ad component and
affect with the experiential component) may be viewed as two different routes of persuasion.
These two routes are not mutually exclusive: advertising communications can adopt either one of
the two approaches, or both of them at the same time, in which case both cognitive and affective
responses might be activated simultaneously (De Pelsmacker, Guens, & Van den Bergh, 2007).
4
Finally, the two internal consumer responses (cognitive and affective) may be related: a positive,
cognitive evaluation may in of itself trigger affect; conversely, an affective response or feeling
may trigger a reflective cognitive response to explain its source or justify why the feeling
The model described thus far is well established and supported by decades of marketing
and consumer research literature. Because it is a general information processing model, one
would expect that it applies to consumers all around the world. However, consumers in different
parts of the world, and in EMs versus DMs in particular, may differ significantly in terms of
whether the ad messages that they are exposed to trigger cognitive and/or affective processes.
That is, advertising messages that may contain both functional and experiential components may
trigger different degrees of cognitive and affective processing in EMs than in DMs. Moreover,
Why could consumers in EMs react differently to ads than consumers in DMs? Consider an
FMCG such as a shampoo, razor, or cleaning product. In EMs, contextual factors affecting the
brand (water availability and purity, bathroom facilities in households, as well as retail
environments and price) may be quite different from DMs. They may affect how consumers
perceive the brand messages and the functional and experiential components—that is the product
attributes shown, the functional values communicated, and the implied sensory and emotional
components.
Specifically, in DMs, where practically all ad research has been conducted, a shift from
rational toward more experiential communications has been reported over the years (Schmitt,
5
1999; Schmitt, Rogers, & Vrotsos, 2003). This finding is consistent with theories on sociology of
consumption. Sociological research has shown that early market capitalism results in a
“disenchantment of the world,” by stressing rationality and functional utility (Weber 1922;
cognitive responses that examine product application, product performance and benefits that
provide functional value. Later forms of capitalism, however, result in a postmodern society and
“re-enchantment,” (Ritzer, 2005; Jenkins, 2000; Firat & Venkatesh, 1995), where hedonic,
emotional and imaginative elements are more important. As markets have matured, consumers
take functional features for granted. They know that a product works and that brands may not be
strongly differentiated on functions. They thus focus on deriving positive affect derived from the
experiential ad components. In sum, they are subject to an experiential route of persuasion (Pine
How about consumers in EMs? Here we propose that consumers still primarily respond to
functionality because these consumers are in earlier stages of capitalism and market
development. They are still learning about product and brand differentiation. As a result, we
would expect that consumers in EMs are most persuaded by functional advertising
communications and that they engage in cognitive processing. They are subject to a functional
route to persuasion.
In line with this reasoning, Chandy, Tellis, MacInnis and Thaivanich (2001) compared
various markets in the U.S. and found that, in younger markets, argument-based ads are more
persuasive than emotion-based ones. As products are often introduced in a new market to solve a
specific consumption problem, advertising communication that explains how to avoid or solve
that problem is more effective. On the other hand, in more mature markets, emotion-based ads
6
are more persuasive than argument-based ads. Consumers from these markets are already
familiar with a certain problem and solution provided by a brand, thus they attach more
importance to the emotional aspects that are provided in advertising communications. Thus, our
In DMs, the experiential route best describes the advertising process of persuasion. However, in
We test this main hypothesis with a set of 256 TV commercials from 23 countries around
hypothesis about such differences. However, there are clearly many contextual factors that may
result in differences within EMs (for example, between Asian emerging markets and emerging
markets in South America and the Middle East). As a result, as much as the data allow us to do
are complex stimuli. They contain not only functional and experiential components. They also
include various degrees of local/global appeal (Zhou & Belk, 2004; Ford, Mueller, & Taylor,
purchase intention, ad likability—may also depend on such factors. We expect that they also
7
influence cognitive and affective responses. We will thus include them in our model and assess
3. Data
Our study uses a set of 256 TV commercials that were tested by our sponsoring multinational
FMCG company in 23 countries, including sixteen emerging and seven developed markets. In
total, there are 102 commercials tested in developed countries and 154 in emerging countries.
See Table 1.
---
---
Our classification of countries into EMs and DMs is based on the Human Development
Index (HDI). Several variables are used to construct the index, including life expectancy,
literacy, education and various standards of living measures (UNDP, 2010). The group of
developed countries includes Australia, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland and UK
(average HDI=0.869). The group of emerging countries includes Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China,
India, Indonesia, Mexico, Morocco, Pakistan, Philippines, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa,
The commercials are for five global brands of household cleaners offered by our
sponsoring multinational company. All commercials were tested by a leading research institute
between January 2007 and August 2010. About a third of these commercials were actually aired
on TV based on their ad test performance. The commercials present a high degree of similarity
across brands because they advertise brands that belong to the same product category (i.e.,
8
household cleaners), as well as across markets because each of the brands advertised has a global
positioning.
Our unit of analysis is the commercial. Each commercial is measured on two sets of
variables. The first set contains aggregate measures of consumers’ cognitive, affective, and
conative responses to the commercial and is provided by the research institute. The second set
contains experts’ evaluation of the commercials on various functional, experiential, and cultural
This dataset includes the aggregate results of the 256 ad tests. Each test is conducted using a
sample of 150 consumers who are representative of the country where the test is conducted in
terms of gender, age, and socio-economic profile. Thus, the dataset combined represents a
worldwide sample of more than thirty-eight thousands consumers. All data are indexed against
country norms, where a score of 100 on any particular ad response measure indicates average
performance in the country. (A score greater (lower) than 100 indicates above (below) average
performance in the country.) This means that the data from different countries are comparable
Consumer responses to advertising have been assessed by the research institute through
various measures related to cognitive, affective and conative responses to advertising. Although
not derived from the literature, these measures represent the result of years of practice in the field
and have been used repeatedly worldwide. Cognitive response (labeled as “COG”) is measured
by five items. These are: 1) ease of understanding the ad (which we label as “Understanding”);
9
differentiation of the ad from others (“Differentiation”); and 5) linkage between the ad and the
brand advertised (“Branding”). The five measures have high internal consistency, with
Cronbach’s alpha equal to 0.89. Affective response (labeled as “AFF”) is measured by two
items: 1) enjoyment of the ad (“Enjoyment”); and 2) the appeal of the brand in the ad
(“Appeal”). These two measures are internally consistent (Cronbach’s alpha=0.86).1 Finally,
buy the product advertised (i.e., purchase intention). We label this variable “PI.” The Appendix
lists the set of questions asked by the research institute to measure consumer responses to the
commercial.
Following the tradition in advertising research (e.g., Olney, Holbrook, & Batra 1991), we use
two knowledgeable experts (one co-author and one senior manager from the sponsoring
multinational firm) to evaluate the 256 TV commercials using a coding scheme we developed.
The coding scheme is reported in the Appendix. The coding scheme asks the coder for a detailed
(Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982; Schmitt, 1999; Brakus, Schmitt, & Zarantonello, 2009) and
cultural (Mueller, 1987; Chiou, 2002; Okazaki, Mueller, & Taylor, 2010) dimensions.
More specifically, the functional aspects are measured by five formative indicators
capturing the degree to which the commercial focuses on: (1) product attributes (which we label
as “ATT”); (2) product applications (“APP”); (3) product performance (“PERF”); (4) product
benefits (“BEN”); and (5) price/value (“VAL”). Expert judges also evaluate how functional the
1
A two-factor solution with varimax rotation explains 74% of the variance in the data (41% is captured by the
cognitive factor and the remaining 33% is captured by the affective factor).
10
commercial is overall (“FUNC”). The experiential aspects are measured by four formative
indicators capturing the degree to which the commercial appeals to: (1) sensory elements
(“SENS”); (2) feelings and emotions (“FEEL”); (3) imagination and mental stimulations
(“IMAG”); and (4) behaviors and actions (“BEH”). Expert judges also evaluate how experiential
the commercial is overall (“EXP”). We use three measures for the cultural aspects of a
commercial. The measures capture the extent to which the ad has: (1) a traditional or modern
appeal (“TM”); (2) a local or global appeal (“LG”); and (3) an individual or community appeal
(“IC”).
The two expert judges were given all the TV commercials with the scripts in the original
language and a back-translation in English. After evaluating all the commercials independently,
they met and compared their coding. Across all countries, the inter-rater agreement ranged from
a high of 0.95 for Australia to a low of 0.84 for Russia, with a mean of 0.90. The judges
managed to resolve all conflicts and the agreed upon coding was merged with the consumer
response data, which we used for the empirical analysis we report next.
4. Model
Our conceptual model relating consumer responses to the experiential, functional, and cultural
characteristics of the ad appears in Figure 1. It is consistent with the general advertising model
described earlier. Following the advertising persuasion process, we assume a forward recursive
flow of effects from ad characteristics through cognitive and affective responses to intended
behavior. Working backward, we assume that purchase intent (i.e., persuasion) depends directly
on two factors: cognition and affect. These two factors, in turn, depend on the functional,
experiential, and cultural characteristics of the ad. Note that the functional and experiential
11
characteristics are endogenously determined by their respective formative indicators whereas the
---
---
For model estimation, we measure cognition by the mean of its five indicator variables:
the mean of its two indicators, enjoyment and appeal. The use of the mean instead of the
individual indicators is necessary for the reliable estimation of the model parameters, due to the
Let i denote commercial i=1, 2, …, 256 and let g=1 (=2) denote if commercial i is tested
in an emerging (developed) country. Then the model depicted in Figure 1 simplifies to the
PI g
i γ g
0p γ COG i
g
1p γ AFFi ,
g
2c g 1, 2; i 1,, 256
where the γ parameters are regression coefficients to be estimated and ε ig (ε ifg , ε ieg , ε icg , ε iag , ε ipg ) is
a vector of error terms that follows a multivariate normal distribution with a zero mean vector
g
and covariance matrix . There are two covariance elements of interest. The first, which we
g
denote fe , is the covariance between FUNC and EXP. This covariance captures the correlation
2
Our sample includes 102 ad tests from developed counties and 154 from developed countries. A fully specified
structural equation model would necessitate the estimation of 123 parameters at the aggregate level. Clearly we do
not have a sufficient number of observations to reliably estimate such a model either at the aggregate or group level.
12
between the extents to which an ad is functional or experiential. The second is the covariance
g
between COG and AFF and is denoted ca . This covariance captures the correlation between the
g
cognitive and affective responses. In Figure 1, fe is represented by the arc connecting FUNC
g
and EXP and ca is represented by the arc connecting COG and AFF.
There are few observations that we need to make regarding the system of equations in
(1). First, because the evaluation of the extent to which an ad is functional or experiential is
made by experts, the relationship between FUNC and EXP and their respective formative
indicators is obviously invariant across emerging and developed countries. Second, we do not
specify country-specific fixed effects because our data are indexed against country norms (i.e.,
the data are “mean-centered” by country). Third, the system of equations in (1) reduces to an
aggregate model if the parameters are invariant across groups. We test for such a specification in
5. Empirical results
We use our data to estimate the simultaneous system of equations in (1) using Proc Tcalis in
SAS. We first estimate two models: an aggregate model that constrains the parameters to be
invariant across emerging and developed countries, and a multi-group model that allows the
parameters to vary across DMs and EMs. We use the latter model to examine if and how the
relationship between ad responses and the cultural, functional, and experiential aspects varies
across emerging and developed countries. We then focus the analysis on EMs to examine if there
is any additional variability in the ad persuasion process within this group of countries.
13
5.1. DMs versus EMs results
We obtain log-likelihoods of -1428.14 and -1400.44 for the aggregate and multi-group models,
respectively. Thus the multi-group simultaneous equation model has a significantly better fit than
2
the aggregate model ( 19 55.18; p < 0.001). We obtain the same conclusion using Akaike’s
(1972) information criterion (AIC), which penalizes for over-parametrization: the multi-group
model has lower AIC than the aggregate model (AIC=2922.28 versus AIC=2905.10,
respectively). These results suggest that the drivers of ad performance significantly vary across
the two groups of countries. We now discuss the details of our empirical results by first
Constraining the model parameters to be invariant across emerging and developed countries, we
obtain the following estimates for the simultaneous system of equations in (1) where parameters
The estimates of the covariance elements fe and ca are, respectively, -0.006 (p > 0.1) and
The results indicate that experts are influenced more by the degree to which the
price/value when judging the extent to which an ad is functional. Similarly, ad appeals to sensory
14
elements, feelings, and imaginations have more influence on expert judgment of the extent to
significantly related to affect (p < 0.05). However, affect is also significantly related to
functional advertising (p < 0.01). As we discuss below, this effect may be due to aggregation
effects (i.e., the pooling of the data across emerging and developed countries). Among the
cultural variables, the local/global variable significantly impacts both cognition and affect (p <
0.05) whereas the traditional/modern variable significantly impacts cognition only (p < 0.05).
Thus global ads are likely to lead to higher cognitive and affective responses from consumers
whereas modern ads appear to have higher impact on cognitive responses. Finally, affect has a
relatively larger impact on purchase intention than cognition, even though both variables are
In summary, the aggregate results suggest that both functional and experiential
Recall that because the extent to which an ad is functional or experiential is judged by experts,
the relationships between FUNC and EXP and their respective formative indicators should not
vary across emerging and developed countries. We already discussed these relationships under
the aggregate results. We now focus on examining how the relationship between consumer
responses and ad characteristics vary across the two groups of countries, beginning with DMs
15
DMs results
We obtain the following estimates for the simultaneous system of equations in (1) where
parameters in boldface are significant at least at the p < 0.05 level. As noted above, the parameter
estimates of the FUNC and EXP equations are identical to those reported in Equation (2) and are
omitted.
1
The estimate of the covariance element ca is 33.24 (p < 0.01).
The estimation results for DMs show that cognition is significantly determined by
whether the ad is traditional or modern (a cultural variable) but not significantly impacted by
whether the ad is functional or experiential. (The local/global cultural variable is only significant
at p < 0.1 level). Thus, in DMs, modern ads seem to have larger impact on cognitive responses
than traditional ones. They also show that affect is significantly impacted by experiential
advertising (p < 0.01). Finally, purchase intent is significantly related to affect (p < 0.001) but
not to cognition. These findings suggest that, in DMs, experiential advertising is a more effective
affective responses which, in turn, impact purchase intention. In order to be effective, therefore,
advertising should be able to stimulate sensations, feelings, imagination as well as behaviors and
lifestyles.
EMs results
We obtain the following estimates for the simultaneous system of equations in (1) where
parameters in boldface are significant at least at the p < 0.05 level. As noted above, the parameter
16
estimates of the FUNC and EXP equations are identical to those reported in Equation (2) and are
omitted.
1
The estimate of the covariance element ca is 51.16 (p < 0.01).
< 0.05). Purchase intent is also significantly related to both cognition (p < 0.001) and affect (p <
0.001). However, unlike the aggregate analysis, only functional advertising and Local/Global
have a significant impact on affect (p < 0.05). The effect of experiential advertising is
insignificant. These findings suggest that, in EMs, functional advertising is more effective route
to persuasion than experiential advertising. Functional advertising seems to jointly impact both
cognition and affect. Thus, to be effective, advertising communications in EMs should focus
more on functional and global elements rather than the experiential aspects.
We now examine if there’s any additional variability in the persuasion process within EMs. We
group EMs into two groups: Asian markets (N = 90), including China, India, Indonesia,
Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, versus non-Asian markets (N = 64), including Argentina, Brazil,
Chile, Mexico, Morocco, Pakistan, Russia, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Turkey.3
As in the DMs versus EMs analysis, we estimate two simultaneous equation models: an
aggregate model within the EMs and multi-group model that contrasts Asian and Non-Asians
3
One could further subdivide the non-Asian markets into Latin America versus the rest. However, such a finer
analysis is not possible given the limited sample size of 64 ads in this group.
17
EMs. We obtain log-likelihoods of -786.14 and -751.66 for the aggregate and multi-group EMs
models, respectively. Thus, within EMs, the multi-group simultaneous equation model has a
2
significantly better fit than the aggregate model ( 19 70.17; p < 0.001). We arrive at the same
conclusion using Akaike’s (1972) information criterion (AIC): the multi-group model has lower
AIC than the aggregate model (AIC=1639.50 versus AIC=1607.32, respectively). These results
suggest that there are significant differences in the drivers of ad performance between Asian and
Non-Asian EMs. We now discuss the details of how these two groups of EMs vary in their ad
persuasion processes. Note that the aggregate results for the EMs have been discussed in Section
5.1.2 above.
For Asian markets, we obtain the following estimates for the simultaneous system of equations
in (1) where parameters in boldface are significant at least at the p < 0.05 level.
1
The estimate of the covariance element ca is 47.55 (p < 0.01).
The estimation results show that experiential advertising has a significant negative impact
on cognition whereas functional advertising has a positive impact. This latter effect is only
significant at p < 0.1 level. Cognition also significantly depends on whether the ad is traditional
or modern. The results also show that there is a significant positive relationship between affect
and functional advertising (p < 0.01), local/global, and traditional/modern. Finally, purchase
intent is significantly determined by both affect and cognition (p < 0.001). These findings
18
suggest that, in Asian markets, functional advertising is a more effective route to persuasion than
experiential advertising. Functional advertising communications with global and modern appeals
produce mainly affective responses which, in turn, impact purchase intention. To be effective in
Asian markets, therefore, advertising should provide information about product attributes,
product applications, product performance, functional benefits, and functional value; advertising
For the non-Asian EMs, we obtain the following estimates for the simultaneous system of
equations in (1) where parameters in boldface are significant at least at the p < 0.05 level.
1
The estimate of the covariance element ca is 37.09 (p < 0.01).
The estimation results show that whereas cognition is significantly determined by both
functional and experiential advertising, affect is only impacted by the latter advertising. They
purchase intent is significantly related to affect but not to cognition. These findings suggest that,
19
5.3. Summary of empirical results
The aggregate analysis reveals that both functional and experiential advertising have significant
impact on affect. More specifically, the aggregate analysis suggests that experiential advertising
has impact on affect whereas functional advertising can impact both cognition and affect. In turn,
the latter two factors jointly impact purchase intent. Multi-groups analyses, however, reveal
some important differences in the advertising persuasion process in different markets. Thus the
aggregate result suffers from the aggregation bias that ensues from pooling the data across
groups of countries.
When considering DMs versus EMs, we find that affect is impacted by functional
Specifically, for DMs, the multi-group analysis suggests that (1) functional advertising has no
impact on consumer cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses to the ad, and (2) experiential
advertising has a significant impact on affect, which in turn, impacts persuasion. In contrast, for
EMs, functional advertising appears to impact both cognition and affect, the two significant
Focusing on EMs, and considering the difference between Asian versus non-Asian
markets, we find that in Asian markets functional advertising drives the persuasion process, as it
influences both cognition and affect. In contrast, in non-Asian EMs, experiential messages seem
to play a key role in stimulating consumers’ affect which, in turn, impacts purchase intention. In
addition, Asian markets seem to be more sensitive to cultural advertising appeals (i.e.,
local/global, traditional/modern), which are able to influence both cognition and affect.
20
6. Conclusions
Using an extensive data set from a FMCG company of 256 TV commercials for cleaning brands
from 23 countries around the world, we find ad processing differences both between EMs and
DMs and among EMs. Whereas in DMs, the experiential route drives persuasion, it is the
functional route that drives persuasion in EMs. Thus advertisers in EMs need to make sure that
they have persuasive functional messages related to product attributes, product applications,
product performance, product benefits, and price/value. Our results also show that, unexpectedly,
the functional route influences affect. This effect may be explained by the functional focus of
consumers in EMs; it seems that because functionality is creating value for them, they derive
Moreover, the data reveal that the functional route is more important in Asian markets
compared to other EMs. We can only speculate why this may be so. Asian markets and
orientation among Asian markets may lead them toward searching for the presence of
functionality, even in ads, and they seem to analyze ads by analyzing the functional features of
the product. Thus, while it may be worthwhile for a FMCG to use a general consumer processing
model when planning its advertising globally, the company also must pay attention to the
differences that exist within that model between EMs and DMs and between Asian EMs and
other EMs.
21
7. Limitations and future research
Even though the paper revealed important differences in the advertising persuasion process
between EMs and DMs, as well as between Asian markets and other EMs, the results that we
obtained must be treated with caution because they are subject to limitations. First, the paper
uses a dataset that includes only one product category (i.e., household cleaners). Future research
needs to test whether the results generalize to other categories, for example, from cleaning
processing differences between markets can be found for other media as well. Finally, and most
importantly, this paper highlighted differences between EMs and DMs, and between Asian
markets and other emerging ones. Although the sample used included several ads from a large
set of countries, the number of observations was not enough to investigate further differences
among emerging countries. Future research should deepen our understanding of the advertising
market regions (for example, between the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America).
Acknowledgements
The authors are thankful to a large fast moving consumer goods multinational company that
provided the dataset. In particular, they wish to thank the two managers who actively supported
the project and the director of the marketing research division who made this possible. The
authors are also thankful to Jia Liu for her assistance in the data analysis.
22
References
Abernethy, A.M., & Franke, G.R. (1996). The information content of advertising: a meta-
Barry, T.E. & Howard, D.J. (1990). A review and critique of the hierarchy of effects in
Brakus, J.J., Schmitt, B.H., & Zarantonello, L. (2009). Brand experience: what is it? How is it
Burgess, S.M., & Steenkamp, J.-B. E.M. (2006). Marketing renaissance: how research in
Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing in the use of source
versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39,
752-766.
Chandy, R., Tellis, G.J., MacInnis, D., & Thaivanich, P. (2001). What to say when: advertising
Chiou, J. (2002). The effectiveness of different advertising message appeals in the Eastern
Copper, J., & Croyle, R.T. (1984). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology,
De Pelsmacker, Guens, & Van den Bergh (2007). Marketing communications: a European
23
Firat, F.A., & Venkatesh, A. (1995). Liberatory postmodernism and the reenchantment of
Ford, J.B., Mueller, B., & Taylor, C.H. (2011). The tension between strategy and execution:
Forgas, J.P. (1995). Mood and judgment: the affect infusion model (AIM). Psychological
Heath, R.G. (2011). The secret of television’s success: emotional content or rational
information? After fifty years the debate continues. Journal of Advertising Research, 51, 1,
Holbrook, M.B., & Hirschman, E.C. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption: consumer
Okazaki, S., Mueller, B., & Taylor, C.R. (2010). Global consumer culture positioning: testing
perceptions of soft-sell and hard-sell advertising appeals between U.S. and Japanese
Olney, T.J., Holbrook, M.B., & Batra, R. (1991). Consumer responses to advertising: the effects
of ad content, emotions, and attitude toward the ad on viewing time. Journal of Consumer
24
Olson, J.M., & Zanna, M.P. (1993). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology,
44, 1, 117-155.
Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances
Petty, R.E., & Wegener, D.T. (1997). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of
Pine, J.B., & Gilmore, J.H. (1999). The experience economy: work is theatre and every business
Schmitt, B.H. (1999). Experiential marketing: how to get customers to sense, feel, think, act,
relate to your company and brands. New York: The Free Press.
Schmitt, B.H., Rogers, D.L., & Vrotsos, K. (2003), There’s no business that’s not show business:
marketing in an experience culture. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Financial Times Prentice
Hall.
Tesser, A., & Shaffer, D.R. (1990). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology,
41, 1, 479-524.
UNDP (2010). Human Development Report 2010. The real wealth of nations: pathways to
Vakratsas, D., & Ambler, T. (1999). How advertising works: what do we really know? Journal
25
Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: an outline of interpretive sociology. Berkeley, CA:
Zhou, N., & Belk, R.W. (2004). Chinese consumer readings of global and local advertising
26
Table 1: Number of ad tests per country
27
Figure 1: Conceptual model
Product Product Product Functional Functional value Understanding Credibility Relevance Differentiation Branding
attributes application performance benefits
Functional
Cognition
aspects
Local/
Global
Traditional/ Purchase
Modern
intention
Individualistic/
Collectivistic
Experiential
Affect
aspects
28
Appendix:
Consumer response and experts measures
Dimension
Items Scales
measured
Consumer response data
Cognitive 1. Understanding: How strongly do you agree or disagree that 1. and 2. 5-point scale from
the advertisement makes you think this brand is really “Strongly disagree” to
different from others? “Strongly disagree”
2. Credibility: How strongly do you agree or disagree that 3. 5-point scale from
what the advertisement puts across about brand X is “Strongly agree” to
believable? “Strongly disagree”
3. Relevance: If you were buying a household cleaner, how 4. 4-point scale from “Very
relevant would the points made in the advertisement be to relevant” to “Not at all
you? relevant”
4. Differentiation: How different is this advertisement from 5. 5-point scale from “You
others that you have seen? couldn’t fail to remember
5. Branding: Thinking about the advertisement you’ve just it was for brand X” to “It
seen for brand X, which one of the phrases below applies to could have been for
this advertisement? almost anything”
Affective 1. Enjoyment: How much would you enjoy watching this 1. 5-point scale from “A
advertising each time you see it on television? lot” to “Not at all”
2. Appeal: How much is the ad able to increase the appeal of 2. 5-point scale from
brand X? “Much more appealing”
to “Much less appealing”
Behavioral 1. Persuasion: How will the advertising affect your use of 1. 4-point scale from
brand X? “Strongly encourage me
to continue using brand
X” to “Makes me less
likely to continue using
brand”
Experts’ judgment data
Functional To what degree does the ad focus on:
aspects 1. Product attributes (i.e., the formulation or ingredients of For all questions: 1 = Not
the product and its features)? present, 2 = Poorly
2. Product application (i.e., how the product has to be applied present, 3 = Somewhat
or rinsed; example: instructions for use, dosage, implement present, 4 = Strongly
required)? present
3. Product performance (i.e., what the product can do and its
cleaning efficacy)?
4. Functional benefits (i.e., the advantages for the consumer)?
5. Functional value (i.e., value for money or convenience of
the product)?
Experiential To what degree does the ad use or appeal to:
aspects 1. Sensory elements (i.e., colors and exciting visuals, music, For all questions: 1 = Not
touch, smell)? present, 2 = Poorly
2. Feelings and emotions (i.e., all kinds of feelings and present, 3 = Somewhat
emotions, either positive such as joy or negative such as present, 4 = Strongly
fear)? present
3. Imagination and mental stimulation (i.e., thinking in a
different, original and innovative way, approaching things
from a new angle)?
4. Behaviors and actions (i.e., physical activities, specific
29
actions, bodily experiences)?
Cultural The ad:
aspects 1. Has a local or global appeal (local = country specific, For all questions: 1 = Has
connecting with a particular culture, place or area; global = a more local (or
universal or inter-cultural, can travel across different traditional or
countries without specific need of translation)? individual…) than global
2. Has a traditional or modern appeal (traditional = (or modern or
conventional, following ideas and methods that have been group/community…)
existing for a long time; modern = up-to-date, using or appeal; 2 = Has an
willing to use very recent ideas, fashions or ways of equally local and modern
thinking)? appeal; 3 = Has a more
3. Talks about the individual or a group/community local than modern appeal
(individual = self, single person and his/her world;
group/community = a group of persons such as family,
neighborhood, friends)?
30