EFFECTIVENESS OF AN AD

PROBLEM: to study the effectiveness of the ad

OBJECTIVE: ad making involves making different steps. Making an ad on the basis of needs of the
consumer and then evaluation of the ad’s effectiveness. Evaluation of the ad can be done on two
levels: communication effect and sales effect. Current study of effectiveness is done by
communication effect using single recall where after showing the ad for sufficient time, the
participants were given a questionnaire.

METHOD:

Design: to study the effectiveness of the ad using the communication effect research. This method
involves determining whether the communication of the ad was effective or not by asking a
representative group of people how they found the ad? Was the ad able to communicate effectively?
What was lacking in the ad? Etc. within the communication effect we used the recall method, where
the person is shown the ad once, he/she is allowed to look at it for sometime and then he/she is given
an open-ended questionnaire to fill.

Measure: a structured open-ended questionnaire was used to determine the effectiveness of the ad on
topic of anti-smoking. The questionnaire was self-made under the guidance of the group coordinator.

Participant: The sampling was purposive sampling, i.e. only those people who smoke were included
in the study. The questionnaire was given to college undergraduates from Gargi College, Delhi
University in the age range 17-22 who are regular smokers (frequency of smoking was 3-10 cigarettes
per day)

Procedure: A structured open-ended questionnaire was formed to determine the effectiveness of the
ad made on anti-smoking previously. The questionnaire was made under the guidance of the group
coordinator and contained questions regarding the information about smoking and questions about the
ad e.g. whether the person liked the ad, what was the most attractive thing in the ad, was she
convinced about the logic given, did the ad catch her attention, etc. the participants were shown the ad
and then the questionnaire was administered to them. Next qualitative analysis was done for the
questionnaire.

RESULTS: Qualitative data is obtained from the questionnaire administered on 10 participants.

Questions pertaining to different aspects were categorised under different headings so that the
responses could be categorised as yes or no. Table 1 gives the various headings, the frequency of
yes/no responses in that category. Subsequently the answers to each response were analysed using
chi-square (χ 2) goodness of fit test, 2x2 contingency table. The χ2 value for each response category
is given and the ones that are marked with *. If the χ2 value obtained for the response category is
greater than 3.841 then it is significant at .05 level. If the χ2 value is greater than 6.635, then it is
significant at .01 level.

Table 1: Response Category, The Frequency Of Responses And The Corresponding χ 2 Values

Response category YES NO χ 2

Recall of headline 18 2 12.8**

Appeal of headline 17 3 9.8**

Recall of pictures used in the ad 20 0 20**

Read all the details in the ad 18 2 12.8**

Recall of most disorders due to smoking mentioned in the

16 4 7.2**
ad

Recall of benefits of not smoking 15 5 5*

Liked the ad 17 3 9.8**

Attention grabbing 18 2 12.8**

Persuaded by the ad’s argument 17 3 9.8**

Change in attitude towards smoking 11 9 0.2*

*Significant at .05 level

**Significant at .01 level

DISCUSSION
The aim of this experiment was to determine the effectiveness of the ad, using the communication
effect. For this the recall method was used in which the ad was shown for sometime to the participant
and then the open-ended questionnaire was given to the participant. The ad was made on the topic of
quit-smoking for a target group of young adults in college who smoke. Hence the participants of this
study were girls from Gargi College who smoke.

From table 1 it can be seen that response categories that got a significant χ2 value at .01 level were
Recall of headline, Appeal of headline, Recall of pictures used in the ad, Read all the details in the ad,
Recall of most disorders due to smoking mentioned in the ad, Liked the ad, Attention grabbing and
Persuaded by the ad’s argument. Χ2 value for recall of benefits of ad was significant at .05 level but
not at .01 level. However Change in attitude towards smoking was non-significant at both .01 and .05
level.

The analysis of each response category and what the Χ2 significance for the category means is given
in the following paragraphs. The analysis is also substantiated by the qualitative responses obtained in
the questionnaire.

Recall of headline

The recall of the headline was tested first. 18 out of 20 people were correctly able to recall the
2
headline of the ad. (χ =12.88, p<. 01) Thus we can conclude that significantly greater number of
people were able to recall the headline “what do you want for yourself and your family?” this in turn
means that the headline was catchy and grabbed the attention of most people.

Appeal of headline

The second response category is the appeal of headline. It can be seen from table 1 that 17 people out
of 20 liked the headline (χ 2 =9.8, p<. 01 level). This means that significantly higher number of people
liked the headline. This can be a result of the emotional appeal used in the headline. A person is
expected to be more affected when something affects his/her family and friends. The qualitative
responses obtained in the open-ended questionnaire supplemented this conclusion. 8 people said that
they really liked the headline because it made them see the whole idea of smoking from another
perspective. Some of the responses obtained are: “most of the ads tell you how smoking is bad for
you, but this ad made me think how I am harming others along with me”, “the very thought of it
happening to my best friend or my boyfriend, ran a chill down my spine”, “I don’t mind anything
happening to me but I can’t let it happen to people closest to me”. Though the headline more or less
had the desired impact on people, there were some people who didn’t like the usage of friends into the
ad. They believed that everyone had their own individual choice and we shouldn’t be forcing our view
onto friends and family. In addition the three people who didn’t like the headline thought it was
essential for a headline to be short and crisp.

Recall of pictures

The next response category was recall of pictures used in the ad. From table 1 it is evident that this
category had the highest recall. All 20 participants were able to recall which pictures were used in the
ad. This is in accordance with previous researches that state that on single exposure on most instances
pictures are recalled better than words. Because the pictures are processed faster and at deeper
semantic levels, they are able to drown out the written content. Out of the pictures, most people found
picture of the smoker’s lung the most disgusting and said that it grabbed their attention in the ad
before anything else. In addition to this, the girl’s photograph caught the attention of a lot of people
since the girl is a well-known personnel in the college. They commented mostly on the photograph
and tended to read the information written over the picture first.

Read the details in the ad

The forth response category was read the details in the ad. This category would make certain if the ad
was capable of grasping the attention of people enough for them to actually read all the details in the
ad. Significantly greater number of people (χ 2 value=12.8, p< .01 level) said that they had read all the
information in the ad and processed it simultaneously. This can be confirmed from the observation of
the participants’ verbal and non-verbal language while reading the ad. I.e. people would generally
read the details aloud and compare whether they have that particular problem (effect of smoking) or
not and whether they believed it or not. They would verbally argue the facts given in the ad. This
showed that the ad was able to grasp their attention enough for them to read all the details given in the
ad. However two people were disinterested in the details and just scanned through the ad. They
nevertheless read the important details aloud like: smoking causes cancer, it can cause decreased
blood flow to the extremities and that you can save money by not smoking.

Recall of most disorders due to smoking mentioned in the ad

The basic idea of the ad was to convey the physical disorders other than lung cancer that can be a
result of smoking. Thus, the main effectiveness of the ad would be determined by whether the
participants were able to recall the negative effects of smoking that the more obvious ones. The
response category catering to this was recall of disorders due to smoking. Out of a sample of 20
people, 16 participants were able to recall most of the disorders and disease caused by smoking, which
were mentioned in the ad (χ 2 = 7.2, p< .01 levels). This means that significantly greater number of
people were able to recall most of the disorders, thus the ad was able to successfully convey the
harmful results other than the more common ones to the participants. This response category was
closely related to the earlier one. If a person doesn’t pay attention to the material in the ad, the recall
of the material is not possible. Infact, recall of material is a function of attention paid to the material
while reading it.

Recall of benefits of not smoking

The frequency of who were able to recall benefits of not smoking was 15 (χ 2 = 5, p< .05 levels) Like
the previous response category, this category is also related earlier mentioned response category: read
details in the ad. The ad gave the benefits of not smoking as well as the harmful effects of smoking in
order to inculcate both a positive appeal and negative appeal approach. The separate questions in
open-ended questionnaire for disorders of smoking and benefits of smoking were done to see the
relative effects of both the appeals. Though numerically the difference between the two isn’t large,
statistically the recall for disorders of smoking is sig. at .01 level whereas the recall of benefits of
smoking is sig. at .05 level but not at .01 level. This shows that fear appeal may work slightly better
than positive appeal.

Liked the ad

The next response category is liked the ad. The participants who gave an overall positive response to
the ad or mentioned that they liked the ad were significantly higher (n=17) who gave a negative
response (n=3) or mentioned that they didn’t like the ad (χ2 = 9.8, p<. 01 level). Thus significantly
greater number of people liked the ad; people described the ad as “very informative”, “the ad
practically gives all the information about smoking”, “I didn’t know there were so many health risks
because of smoking”. However some people mentioned that the ad had too much information and
that a shorter message might have been more effective.

Attention grabbing

18 people out of 20 said that the ad was attention grabbing. This corresponds to a χ2 value of 12.8,
which is significant at .01 level. The chief reason they stated for grabbing attention was the picture of
the lung and the girl. These two pictures then further motivated them to read what all is written in the
poster. The red and black contrast made it eye catching and in the face. Participants said, “The colour
contrast was the first thing to grab my attention”. Research has proved that red colour attracts more
attention than any other colour; this is because red light has the highest speed out of all the coloured
lights and thus reaches the eye fastest. Thus the red colour was given as a base on the smoker’s lung
side since red signifies danger and caution among other things. The red colour ensured that the person
would notice the smoker’s lung and associate it with danger. Other attention-grabbing feature was the
picture of the cigarette and the girl’s photograph. Since the ad had a lot of information it was
important to include more pictures to grab the attention of the reader. This technique worked pretty
well as was seen from a high recall of material written in the ad. Also the participants mentioned “the
ad kept my attention because of all the pictures used”.

Persuaded by the ad’s argument

The participants were asked whether they were persuaded and why they were or were not persuaded.
The responses were categorized as yes and no. 17 people said that they were persuaded by the ad
which corresponds to a χ2 value of 9.8, significant at .01 level. Thus significantly large number of
people mentioned that they were persuaded by the ad and the information given in it. The reasons as
to why they were persuaded were “because of the information in the ad”, “smoking causes so many
health problems no only for yourself but everyone around”, “I don’t want my lungs to look black and
ugly”, “and I have reasons to quit smoking now”. As seen by these responses, people were persuaded
by a large variety of reasons. Mostly they were influenced by the information in the ad. Hence the
informative appeal used in the ad while making it was effective in persuading people. In addition the
fear appeal used-picture of lungs of smokers also worked pretty well. Most people saw the picture of
the lungs foremost in the ad and that remained in the mind later on as well. Participants said “I can’t
get the picture of the smoker’s lung out of my head”

Change in attitude towards smoking

Out of 20 participants only 10 said there would be an active effort from their side to stop smoking.
This corresponds to a χ2 value of .2 which is not significant. Despite the high attention grabbing
ability and high persuasion of the ad as noted in the participants’ responses, the attitude change
towards trying to quit smoking was very low. This disparity is because through ads it is difficult to
change the attitude of people. There are three levels of attitude: the cognitive level, the affective level
and the behavioural level. Any change in behaviour first starts with an increase in awareness and
knowledge, then a person develops a belief and then the belief may or may not correspond to action.
Though the ad might have been able to increase the person’s awareness and may have been able to
persuade a favourable belief about quitting smoking but the behaviour component is dependent on
many other factors. E.g. there might be peer pressure to continue smoking, the person may be addicted
to smoking, smoking may be a source of vent for the person, etc.

Though most people were persuaded by the ad and said that they were convinced that smoking was
bad for health, they would not try to quit smoking. 3 of the participants said they “I don’t know why I
would not try to quit smoking”, the rest of the participants who gave a negative response in this
category said “the ad was persuasive but I haven’t developed any of those problems”, “no one I know
has developed these problems due to smoking”, “everyone has some or the problem, how does it
matter if I have mine due to smoking”. There may be deep-rooted reasons for people to smoke, which
could not be debated via a poster. This may explain the low frequency of participants who agree to
quit smoking despite the overwhelming positive response in other categories.
Nevertheless, the ad was able to persuade 9 participants enough for them to try to quit smoking. This
number may not be statistically significant but the number itself is good enough. 9 out of 20
participants tried to quit smoking this means that 45% of the people who viewed the ad quit smoking.
This value is a good enough number for the effectiveness of an ad.

The overall effectiveness of the ad seems to be quite good. The recall of headline, written material,
pictures, etc was high. Also significantly greater number of people were drawn towards the ad, said it
grabbed their attention and were persuaded by the ad. Though some participants suggested that the
written material was too much, most people said that the ad provided valuable information which was
the key factor which persuaded them. The colour contrast, the picture of lungs and the heading all
were well received by the target group and had the desired effect on them. Thus according the
communication effect research method, the ad was effective.
REFERENCES

Books

Belch, G. E., & Belch, M. A. Advertising and Promotion: An Integrated Marketing Communications
Perspective, (6 th: New York: NY: McGraw-Hill. 2004)

Engel, J., Kollatt, D. and Blackwell, R. 'Consumer Behavior ' (Dryden Press, 1978)

Schiffman, L.G. (1993), Consumer Behavior, Prentice Hall International, London.

Loudon, D.L. (1988), Consumer Behavior: Concepts and Applications, McGraw Hill, London.

Sites

http://www.allbusiness.com/marketing-advertising/advertising/345030-1.html

http://www.questia.com/library/communication/advertising-and-public-relations/advertising-
research/advertising-recall.jsp

http://books.google.co.in/books?
id=3DqkMb97xoUC&pg=PA147&lpg=PA147&dq=pictures+better+recall+in+ad&source=bl&ots=8
5LZScHvWE&sig=aKE1PryiWPKi5975m9oTNBQtL5Q&hl=en&ei=TBG5SfebLM-
_kAWGy5CbCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA150,M1