Let's be strange: brand familiarity and ad-brand ... - CiteSeerX

An executive sum m ary for m anagers and executive readers can be found at the end of this article

Let’s be strange: brand familiarity and ad-brand incongruency Fredrik Lange Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm, Sweden

Micael DahleÂn Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm, Sweden

Keywords Advertising, Brand awareness, Information strategy, Memory, Brands schema Abstract Reports on an experimental study where the effects of ad-brand incongruency on a familiar brand and an unfamiliar brand, respectively, are measured. Building on theory on information incongruency, tests the notion that ads that are incongruent with the brand image may be more effective in raising brand interest and brand memorability. However, this depends on the familiarity of the brand: the incongruency reinforces the existing associations for a familiar brand by increasing elaboration of the brand message, whereas the incongruent associations may take the upper hand for an unfamiliar brand with weaker existing associations. The results show that ad-brand incongruency enhances brand attitude and brand memorability and reduces ad memorability for the familiar brand. The only significant effect of ad-brand incongruency for the unfamiliar brand is a reduced brand memorability.

Introduction A commonly held conception is that brand managers should strive for consistency in the marketing communication. Erdem and Swait (1998) suggest that brand value is increased by consistent communication of the brand over time. Haynes et al. (1999) emphasize the importance of coordinating all elements in the marketing communication to ensure a consistent brand image that will appeal to customers. The empirical and conceptual research literature on brand concept consistency is substantial (Park et al., 1986, 1991; Keller, 1993; Broniarczyk and Alba, 1994). But is consistency always desirable? And should all brands be communicated in the same way? In this article, we argue that some brands may benefit from advertising breaking the consistency, using ``strange’’ ads that are incongruent with the associations consumers hold with the brand. Inform ation incongruency

There is a growing body of literature concerning the effects of information incongruency in ads. Research indicates that ads where the different (verbal and visual) elements are incongruent with each other are more memorable (Heckler and Childers, 1992). Moreover, ads with information incongruency have been found to increase both ad attitude and brand attitude (Lee and Mason, 1999; Lee, 2000). The empirical studies have focused on the incongruency between different elements in the ad. We suggest that ads that are incongruent with the brand, and the associations consumers hold with it, may have similar effects. One of the most differentiating features between brands is brand familiarity. There is ample evidence in the literature that familiar brands have a communicative advantage over unfamiliar brands. Familiar brands are more easily detected in the advertising clutter (Alba and Hutchinson, 1987; The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm

JO U R N A L O F P R O D U C T & B R A N D M A N A G E M E N T , V O L . 12 N O . 7 20 03 , p p. 4 49-46 1, # M C B U P L IM IT E D , 1 06 1-04 21 , D O I 10 .1 108 /10 61 04 20 310 50 60 10

44 9

DahleÂn, 2001). Furthermore, they are less sensitive to attacks from competitors and they have more persuasive power (Snyder, 1989; Kent and Allen, 1994). But there is a drawback to brand familiarity, as well. Advertising for familiar brands wear out quickly (Tellis, 1997; DahleÂn, 2001). In fact, consumers may even get bored with familiar brands (Machleit et al., 1993). Brand fam iliarity

Drawing from literature on information incongruency and brand familiarity, we hypothesize that familiar brands may gain from using ads that are incongruent with the brand whereas unfamiliar brands are better served with ads that are congruent with the brand. In an empirical study, we test the effects of congruent ads and incongruent ads for a familiar brand and for an unfamiliar brand. Ad memorability, brand memorability and brand attitude are investigated for the ads. Information incongruency Several studies of information incongruency in ads have suggested that strange and unexpected ad elements have positive effects on advertising effectiveness. Most studies have focused on incongruencies between the verbal and the visual elements of the ad (Heckler and Childers, 1992; Lee and Mason, 1999; Lee, 2000). Several interesting effect have been uncovered. When ad elements are incongruent, memorability increases for the ad and the various elements (Heckler and Childers, 1992). Furthermore, ad and brand attitudes are enhanced (Lee and Mason, 1999; Lee, 2000). Information incongruency also leads to greater confidence in consumers’ evaluation of the ad and the brand (Lee, 2000). A few studies have investigated information that is incongruent with consumers’ schemata and perceptions of the product category (Meyers-Levy and Tybout, 1989; Sujan, 1985; Sujan et al., 1986). In these studies, subjects have been presented with information about a soft drink (Meyers-Levy and Tybout, 1989) or a sales encounter (Sujan et al., 1986) that is incongruent with their existing experiences and schemata. The results show that the incongruent information leads to more positive evaluations of the product and to more focused processing of the product-related arguments category (Meyers-Levy and Tybout, 1989; Sujan, 1985; Sujan et al., 1986).

Curiosity and interest

The literature mentions several effects of the information incongruency. It enhances arousal (Gardner et al., 1985). Moreover, it leads to curiosity and interest (Muehling and Laczniak, 1988) and increased message involvement (Lee, 2000). Meyers-Levy and Tybout (1989) suggest that the incongruency produces affect that may be transferred over to the ad and the product. All these effects lead to more cognitive processing and careful elaboration which in turn makes the ad/information more persuasive (Kent and Allen, 1994) and the responses more favorable (Heckler and Childers, 1992; Lee, 2000). In this article, we will combine the two previously studied areas. We use information that is incongruent with consumers’ schemata and perceptions (Meyers-Levy and Tybout, 1989; Sujan et al., 1986) and present it in an ad format (Heckler and Childers, 1992; Lee and Mason, 1999; Lee, 2000). The information incongruency will be between the actual ad and the brand and the associations consumers hold with it. Based on the previous research, we would expect that the ad-brand incongruency leads to increased memorability of the ad and the brand and to a more positive brand attitude. However, consumers’ perceptions of and responses to the ad-brand incongruency are dependent on the brand’s familiarity.

4 50

JO U R N A L O F P R O D U C T & B R A N D M A N A G E M E N T , V O L . 12 N O . 7 20 03

Brand familiarity Brand familiarity has been subject to much research. Numerous studies have shown that familiar brands have major advantages over unfamiliar brands in advertising. Familiar brands direct consumers’ attention in the ad (Pechmann and Stewart, 1990; Chattopadhyay, 1998) and they make the ad more noticeable in the advertising clutter (DahleÂn, 2001). Furthermore, brand familiarity automatically produces more favorable evaluations of the brand (Janiszewski, 1993; Holden and Vanhuele, 1999). Execution elem ents

We argue that the brand-related message requires more effort to process than the ad execution elements in the ad. Consumers are therefore more likely to process the ad execution elements than the brand-related message (Chattopadhyay and Nedungadi, 1992; Chattopadhyay, 1998). However, it has been shown that familiar brands are perceived as more important and relevant, which makes consumers more likely to spend more effort processing the ad and, hence, the brand-related message (Kent and Allen, 1994). Furthermore, the familiar brand requires less effort to process than the unfamiliar brand (Alba and Hutchinson, 1987; Haider and French, 1999) increasing the likelihood even more that consumers will process the brand-related message. Unfamiliar brands do not have these advantages, meaning that the brand-related message is less likely to be processed in the ad. There is ample evidence, compared to unfamiliar brands, that consumers usually have rather elaborate and sophisticated schemas for familiar brands stored in memory (Heckler and Childers, 1992; Kent and Allen, 1994; Low and Lamb, 2000). Low and Lamb (2000) demonstrate that consumers are able to store multiple associations for a familiar brand but not for an unfamiliar brand. Furthermore, the stored brand information is more easily retrieved for familiar brands (Heckler and Childers, 1992) and new brand-related information is more easily stored (Kent and Allen, 1994). When consumers are exposed to a typical (congruent) ad for a familiar brand, the ad should thus be easy to recognize and to store in memory in the existing schema for the brand. Furthermore, the information should be easily retrieved from the schema. However, when consumers are exposed to an atypical (incongruent) ad for a familiar brand, there should be a conflict between the stored information in the brand schema and the information in the ad. As the stored information for a familiar brand is usually well-established through multiple experiences with the brand and thus perceived as personally relevant (Heckler and Childers, 1992; Kent and Allen, 1994) it should dominate over the new ad information and crowd it out from memory. Therefore, we expect that ad memorability is higher for congruent ads than for incongruent ads for familiar brands (H1a).

Ad m em orability

Consumers do not have a sophisticated and well-established schema about unfamiliar brands. The ad-brand congruency/incongruency should therefore not have an effect on ad memorability, as there is neither a match nor a conflict between the information in the ad and the existing brand schema (H1b). The hypotheses are summarized below: H1a. For familiar brands, ad memorability is higher for congruent ads than for incongruent ads. H1b. For unfamiliar brands, there is no difference in ad memorability between congruent and incongruent ads.


4 51

The incongruent ad should make a stark contrast to the familiar brand. The reasons for this are twofold. First, the brand-related message is likely to be processed when the brand is familiar (Chattopadhyay, 1998). Second, the schema stored in consumers’ memories for the familiar brand provides associations and a clear picture of the brand with which the information in the ad can be compared. When the information in the ad does not fit with the schema, consumers’ processing of the (brand-related) information increases (Meyers-Levy and Tybout, 1989; Heckler and Childers, 1992). Therefore, we expect that brand memorability is higher for incongruent ads than for congruent ads for familiar brands (H2a). Brand-related m essage

We do not expect this effect to occur for unfamiliar brands. Consumers are more likely to focus on the ad execution elements than on the brand-related message when they process the ad for an unfamiliar brand (Chattopadhyay, 1998). Furthermore, the lack of well-established schemas makes it harder to store the brand-related information. As consumers tend to focus more on the ad execution elements in ads for unfamiliar brands, it is imperative that the ad execution elements support the brand-related message so that it is perceived and stored correctly. Therefore, the ad should be congruent with the brand rather than incongruent with the brand to increase brand memorability. We expect that brand memorability is lower for incongruent ads than for congruent ads for unfamiliar brands (H2b). The hypotheses are summarized below: H2a. For familiar brands, brand memorability is higher for incongruent ads than for congruent ads. H2b. For unfamiliar brands, brand memorability is lower for incongruent ads than for congruent ads. Advertising for familiar brands wear out quickly (Tellis, 1997). Consumers tire of the ads, they stop paying attention to the ads, and they may even become irritated by the advertising (Tellis, 1997; DahleÂn, 2001). Furthermore, the familiarity may make consumers bored with the brand, as they already have a well-established picture of the brand (Machleit et al., 1993). An incongruent ad stands out from the rest of the brand’s advertising, potentially making it more noticed (reducing wear-out) and making it more interesting (reducing boredom). The effect of this should be an increase in brand attitude. Therefore, we expect that brand attitude is higher for incongruent ads than for congruent ads for familiar brands (H3a).

Advertising wear-out

Unfamiliar brands do not suffer from advertising wear-out or consumer boredom (Tellis, 1997; Machleit et al., 1993). Instead, advertising is needed to make the brand more salient (Alba and Chattopadhyay, 1986). This means that the most important thing may be to expose consumers to the brand (irrespective of the ad content) rather than challenging them with ``strange’’ advertising. Therefore, we expect that there is no difference in brand attitude between incongruent ads and congruent ads for unfamiliar brands (H3b). Exposing consumers to advertising of the brand may enhance brand attitude simply by enhancing its salience (Alba and Chattopdahyay, 1986). We are interested in the effects that the ad-brand (in)congruency has on brand attitude, rather than just the immediate effect of an additional advertising exposure. Hence, our hypotheses concern brand attitude at a delay: H3a. For familiar brands, brand attitude at a delay is higher for incongruent ads than for congruent ads.

4 52


H3b. For unfamiliar brands, there is no difference in brand attitude at a delay between incongruent ads and congruent ads. Method A sample size of 302 college students participated in the study. We used a two-by-two design. The two between-subjects variables were ad-brand congruency (congruent ad/incongruent ad) and brand familiarity (familiar/unfamiliar brand). The hypotheses were tested with print advertisements. Print advertisements are reader-paced and are thus well-suited for research concerning information incongruency (Lee, 2000). This is because subjects can process the ads for as long as they want, allowing for differences in attention and elaboration induced by the ad formats. Internal validity

Stimulus development and pretests Chocolate bars were chosen as the product category. Sweden’s number one brand (Cloetta, with slogan ``feel good with Cloetta’’) was chosen as the familiar brand. The brand is a heavy advertiser and has held the same position over the last 30 years. A fictitious brand (Chokocrisp, with slogan ``get a kick with Chokocrisp’’) was also created. The goal was to create a brand that would have the same brand associations as the familiar Cloetta brand. This was done in order to ensure internal validity, meaning that differences in brand associations would not confound the results. The brand associations were elicited following the procedure of Ratneshwar and Shocker (1991). In a pretest, 20 subjects were asked to list associations they, first, held with the familiar brand and, second, did not hold with the familiar brand. The five most commonly mentioned associations of each kind were quantified with seven-point Likert scales and rated by 20 new subjects. Of the associations held with the brand, four (energetic, casual, quality and Swedish) received high scores by all the subjects and were chosen for the study. Of the associations subjects did not hold with the brand, four (trendy, cool, snobby and expensive) received high scores by all the subjects and were chosen for the study. The fictitious brand was created to resemble the familiar brand regarding the brand associations. A different name and a different logo (with blue colors instead of the familiar brand’s yellow colors) were used so that the brand would not be mistaken for the familiar brand. A total of 20 subjects rated the brand and its slogan on the four plus four associations. The brand scored high on all eight dimensions with no significant differences from the familiar brand.

Product category

Two print ad versions were developed, one brand-congruent and one brand-incongruent. Simulating real-world ads in the product category, the ads consisted of a big picture. In the lower right corner, there was a small picture of the chocolate bar and its slogan. This also resembles the procedure used in Heckler and Childers (1992) and Lee (2000). The picture in the congruent ad portrayed a big group of people in their 20s at an after-ski party overlooking a winter landscape. The people were tanned and physically fit and they were laughing and enjoying themselves. The picture in the incongruent ad portrayed five trendy model-like men and women in their late 20s looking directly into the camera. The scenery was a club setting. They wore fashion clothing and looked cool and detached.


4 53

The ads were pretested in two steps. First, 41 subjects rated the fit between the picture and the brands on a ten-point scale (``How well do the picture and the brand fit together?’’). The mean values were 8.5 for the congruent ad and 2.3 for the incongruent ad (difference p < 0.01). Next, associations evoked by the picture in the incongruent ad were analyzed, using the same procedure as the brand pretests. The same four associations that subjects did not hold with the brands (trendy, cool, snobby and expensive) were quantified with seven-point Likert scales and rated by 20 subjects. The picture received high scores on all four associations by all the subjects. The two brands and the two ads were matched to create four different ads (familiar-congruent, familiar-incongruent, unfamiliar-congruent, unfamiliar-incongruent). Perceived fit

Manipulation checks In the main study, brand awareness and brand usage was asked for the familiar brand as a manipulation check of its familiarity. Brand awareness was 100 percent and 91 percent indicated that they bought the brand at least sometimes. The perceived fit between the ads and the brands were tested with a measure based upon Ratneshwar and Shocker (1991). There was a significant difference (p < 0.001) between the congruent ad (mean 3.5) and the incongruent ad (mean 2.3) and no significant difference between the brands. Experimental procedure Each subject saw only one ad. The subjects were randomly divided into the four cells making a cell size of approximately 75 for each of the four ads. The cover story was short, stating only that we were interested in their candy consumption (each respondent was given a small pack of candy as an incentive upon completion of the questionnaire). Without further instruction, the questionnaires were handed out with one of the ads on the first page. Subjects were free to view the ad for as long (or short) they liked, just like in a real setting. When they turned the page, some filler questions were included for mind clearing purposes. The filler questions were demographic (gender, age, place of home and so forth). This first questionnaire also measured immediate effects of brand attitude. Subjects were instructed not to turn back the page and look at the ad again.

Brand attitude

One week after the exposure and first questionnaire, the subjects were handed a second questionnaire (no ad this time) measuring brand attitude at a delay and the memorability of the ad and the brand. By measuring brand attitude before ad and brand memorability we aimed to avoid possible carryover effects from memorability to attitude, in total, 80 percent (241) of the subjects from the first session completed the second questionnaire. Measures Ad memorability was measured with the question, ``How difficult was it to remember the ad?’’. The responses were given on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = not at all difficult, 7 = very difficult). Brand memorability was measured with the question, ``How difficult was it to remember the brand?’’. The responses were given on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = not at all difficult, 7 = very difficult). Brand attitude was measured with three items on a seven-point semantic differential. They were good/bad, negative/positive, satisfactory/ unsatisfactory. The averaged index had a Cronbach’s alpha = 0.92. The

4 54


measure is taken from Loken and Ward (1990) and Simonin and Ruth (1998). Results H1a and H1b were tested with mean comparison t-tests of ad memorability between the congruent ad and the incongruent ad. The results are listed in Table I. Note that lower scores indicate greater memorability. For the familiar brand, the mean ad memorability score was 3.29 for the congruent ad and 3.51 for the incongruent ad. The difference is statistically significant (p < 0.10). This means that the congruent ad was more easily remembered than the incongruent ad. H1a is supported: for familiar brands, ad memorability is higher for congruent ads than for incongruent ads. For the unfamiliar brand, there is no significant difference (p > 0.5) between the congruent ad (mean score 3.76) and the incongruent ad (mean score 3.93). This supports H1b: for unfamiliar brands, there is no difference in ad memorability between congruent and incongruent ads. Fam iliar brand

Mean comparison t-tests of brand memorability between the congruent ad and the incongruent ad were used to test hypotheses H2a and H2b. The results are shown in Table I. Once again, note that lower scores indicate greater memorability. For the familiar brand, the mean brand memorability score was significantly higher (p < 0.10) for the congruent ad (2.73) than for the incongruent ad (2.53). This means that the brand was more easily remembered for the incongruent ad than for the congruent ad. H2a is thus supported: for familiar brands, brand memorability is higher for incongruent ads than for congruent ads. The opposite pattern was found for the unfamiliar brand. The mean brand memorability score was 2.82 for the congruent ad and 3.14 for the incongruent ad. The difference is statistically significant (p < 0.01). This means that the brand was easier to remember for the congruent ad than for the incongruent ad. This supports H2b: for unfamiliar brands, brand memorability is lower for incongruent ads than for congruent ads. H3a and H3b were tested with mean comparison t-tests of brand attitude at a delay between the congruent ad and the incongruent ad. The results are listed (together with tests of immediate brand attitude) in Table II. For the familiar

Ad memorability Familiar brand Unfamiliar brand Brand memorability Familiar brand Unfamiliar brand

Congruent ad

Incongruent ad

Difference

3.29 3.76

3.51 3.93

p < 0.10 Not significant p > 0.5

2.73 2.82

2.53 3.14

p < 0.10 p < 0.01

Table I. H1-H2

Abrand immediate Familiar brand Unfamiliar brand Abrand delay Familiar brand Unfamiliar brand

Congruent ad

Incongruent ad

Difference

5.35 3.80

5.80 3.91

p < 0.01 Not significant p > 0.5

4.99 3.85

5.20 3.80

Not significant p = 0.16 Not significant p > 0.8

Table II. H3a-H3b JO U R N A L O F P R O D U C T & B R A N D M A N A G E M E N T , V O L . 12 N O . 7 20 03

4 55

brand, the mean brand attitude at a delay was 5.20 for the incongruent ad and 4.99 for the incongruent ad, p = 0.16, which means that the difference is not statistically significant. Therefore, we do not find support for H3a, that brand attitude at a delay is higher for the incongruent ad. The directionality corresponds with the hypothesis, but the effect at a delay seems to be too small. As can be seen in Table II, the immediate brand attitude is significantly higher for the incongruent ad, but the effect is not sustained at a delay. For the unfamiliar brand, there is no significant difference (p > 0.8) in mean brand attitude at a delay between the congruent ad (3.85) and the incongruent ad (3.80). The directionality is opposite that of the familiar brand. H3b is supported: for unfamiliar brands, there is no difference in brand attitude at a delay between incongruent ads and congruent ads. Summary and implications The results in the present study showed that consumers had a harder time remembering the ad for the familiar brand when it was not congruent with the brand. This may explain the low ad recall rates that are often reported in tracking studies of new advertising platforms or repositionings of brands. Consumers do not remember the advertising because it does not fit in the brand schema in their heads. The information and associations from the ad is crowded out by the well-established associations in the already existing brand schema. This pattern did not surface for the unfamiliar brand. Congruent ad information does not have an advantage and incongruent ad information does not have a disadvantage because there is no existing brand schema. Brand schem a

Turning to brand memorability, the results showed that the incongruent ad actually made the familiar brand easier to remember. The reason for this is probably that the incongruent ad makes consumers process the information more carefully and it evokes the stored brand schema. Thus, there is a double effect. First, consumers process the ad carefully which, in the case of familiar brands, means careful processing of the brand-related message. Second, the stored information about the brand is activated. Decreased ad memorability and increased brand memorability may seem like a contradiction. However, the literature on mere exposure effects and false fame (Janiszewski, 1993; Holden and Vanhuele, 1999) suggests that this may be the optimal advertising response. The goal for advertising should be to expose consumers to the brand, thus producing a mere exposure effect (the more people are exposed to a stimulus, the better they recognize it and the more they like it). But if consumers remember and are aware of the advertising it is likely that they will:

Decreased risk

.

attribute their liking and recognition of the brand to the advertising, meaning that they do not believe that they actually like the brand (`ìt’s just because of the ads’’); and

.

get tired of and eventually irritated by the advertising (Tellis, 1997; DahleÂn, 2001).

The ``strange’’ ad for the familiar brand made it easier for consumers to remember the brand and harder to remember the ad, thus making the brand more salient with a decreased risk of advertising wear-out. The incongruent ad made it harder to remember the unfamiliar brand. Since there is no existing brand schema in consumers’ heads, unfamiliar brands may thus need support from the ad execution elements in order to be remembered. The brand schema is created by the information in the ad and it

4 56


is therefore important that the ad is congruent with the brand so that it is stored correctly. For an unfamiliar brand, the ad’s job is to establish and build the brand. This means that the two cannot afford to compete with conflicting information. Established views

Turning to brand attitude, there was not a significant difference between the incongruent ad and the congruent ad for the familiar brand at a delay. However, the directionality was as expected: the brand attitude was higher for the incongruent ad. The effect was not great enough to be clearly sustained after one week, but there does still seem to be an effect. We argue that the ``strange’’ ad revitalizes the brand and reduces some of the boredom related to the established, well-known brand (Machleit et al., 1993). As consumers have a relationship with the brand and a sophisticated brand schema, they quickly resort to their established views of the brand again. As expected, there was no difference in brand attitude at a delay between the incongruent ad and the congruent ad for the unfamiliar brand. There is no boredom to reduce for an unfamiliar brand. For the unfamiliar brand, the one ad is not better than the other per se. Rather, the important thing to consider is how the ad supports the brand in terms of associations and recall. Summarizing, we have found that incongruent ads work differently for familiar brand and unfamiliar brands. For the unfamiliar brand, the only discernable effect was negative (lower brand memorability). The conclusion is that advertising for an unfamiliar brand should aim at establishing the brand and create a brand schema to help store and retrieve brand information. Therefore, it is better to use congruent ads. However, for familiar brands it might be better to use strange ads as positive mere exposure effects may arise. Thus, the salience and liking of the familiar brand can be increased without breaking the brand concept consistency. Let’s be strange!

Brand extensions

Taking this one step further, our results also have implications for brand extensions. The value of congruency has been emphasized in the use of brand extensions (Loken and Roedder-John, 1993; Broniarczyk and Alba, 1994). Brand dilution effects are expected when a brand makes an incongruent brand extension. These dilution effects have been measured mainly by cognitive responses (i.e. for changes in brand-specific associations), but as we have seen in this study, incongruency may lead to a positive change in affective responses to the brand. We call for an examination of affective responses of incongruent brand extensions. If similar patterns are revealed as for the ad-brand incongruency in this study, it would imply that brand affect may be enhanced or, at least, sustained by a strange, unexpected extension to the brand. References Alba, J.W. and Chattopadhyay, A. (1986), ``Salience effects in brand recall’’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 363-9. Alba, J.W. and Hutchinson, J.W. (1987), ``Dimensions of consumer expertise’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13, March, pp. 411-54. Broniarczyk, S.M. and Alba, J.W. (1994), ``The importance of the brand in brand extension’’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31, May, pp. 214-28. Chattopadhyay, A. (1998), ``When does comparative advertising influence brand attitude? The role of delay and market position’’, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 461-75. Chattopadhyay, A. and Nedungadi, P. (1992), ``Does attitude toward the ad endure? The effects of delay and attention’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 26-33.


4 57

DahleÂ n, M. (2001), ``Banner ads through a new lens’’, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 23-30. Erdem, T. and Swait, J. (1998), ``Brand equity as a signaling phenomenon’’, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 131-57. Gardner, M.P., Mitchell, A.A. and Russo, J.E. (1985), ``Low involvement strategies for processing advertisements’’, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 4-13. Haider, H. and French, P.A. (1999), `Ìnformation reduction during skill acquisition: the influence of task instruction’’, Journal of Experimental Psychology ± Applied, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 129-51. Haynes, A., Lackman, C. and Guskey, A. (1999), ``Comprehensive brand presentation: ensuring consistent brand image’’, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 286-300. Heckler, S.E. and Childers, T.L. (1992), ``The role of expectancy and relevancy in memory for verbal and visual information: what is incongruency?’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 18, March, No. 475-92. Holden, S.J.S. and Vanhuele, M. (1999), ``Know the name, forget the exposure: brand familiarity versus memory of exposure context’’, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 479-96. Janiszewski, C. (1993), ``Preattentive mere exposure effects’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 3, No. 376-92. Keller, K.L. (1993), ``Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, January, pp. 1-22. Kent, R.J. and Allen, C.T. (1994), ``Competitive interference effects in consumer memory for advertising: the role of brand familiarity’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, July, pp. 97-105. Lee, Y.H. (2000), ``Manipulating ad message involvement through information expectancy: effects on attitude evaluation and confidence’’, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 29-43. Lee, Y.H. and Mason, C. (1999), ``Responses to information incongruency in advertising: the role of expectancy, relevancy, and humor’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 26, September, pp. 156-69. Loken, B. and Roedder-John, D. (1993), ``Diluting brand beliefs: when do brand extensions have a negative impact?’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, July, No. 71-84. Loken, B. and Ward, J. (1990), `Àlternative approaches to understanding the determinants of typicality’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17, September, pp. 111-26. Low, G.S. and Lamb, C.W. Jr (2000), ``The measurement and dimensionality of brand associations’’, Journal of Product & Brand Management , Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 350-68. Machleit, K.A., Allen, C.T. and Madden, T.J. (1993), ``The mature brand and brand interest: an alternative consequence of ad-evoked affect’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, October, pp. 72-82. Meyers-Levy, J. and Tybout, A.M. (1989), ``Schema congruity as a basis for product evaluation’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16, June, No. 39-54. Muehling, D.D. and Laczniak, R.N. (1988), `Àdvertising’s immediate and delayed influence on brand attitudes: considerations across message involvement levels’’, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 23-34. Park. C.W., Jaworski, B.J. and Macinnis, D.J. (1986), ``Strategic brand concept-image management’’, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 135-45. Park, C.W., Milberg, S. and Lawson, R. (1991), `Èvaluations of brand extensions: the role of product feature similarity and brand concept consistency’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 18, September, pp. 185-93. Pechmann, C. and Stewart, D.W. (1990), ``The effects of comparative advertising on affection, memory, and purchase intentions’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17, September, pp. 180-91. Ratneshwar, S. and Shocker, A.D. (1991), ``Substitution in use and the role of usage context in product category structures’’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28, August, pp. 281-95. Simonin, B.L. and Ruth, J.A. (1998), `Ìs a company known by the company it keeps? Assessing the spillover effects of brand alliances on consumer brand attitudes’’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 35, February, pp. 30-42. 4 58


Snyder, R. (1989), ``Misleading characteristics of implied-superiority claims’’, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 54-61. Sujan, M. (1985), ``Consumer knowledge: effects of evaluation strategies mediating consumer judgments’’, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12, June, pp. 31-46. Sujan, M., Bettman, J.R. and Sujan, H. (1986), `Èffects of consumer expectations on information processing in selling encounters’’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 23, November, pp. 346-52. Tellis, G.J. (1997), `Èffective frequency: one exposure or three factors?’’, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 75-80. Further reading Machleit, K.A. and Wilson, R.D. (1988), `Èmotional feelings and attitude toward the advertisement: the roles of brand familiarity and repetition’’, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 27-35.

&


4 59

This summ ary has been provided to allow managers and executives a rapid appreciation of the content of this article. Those with a particular interest in the topic covered m ay then read the article in toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the research undertaken and its results to get the full benefit of the material present

Executive summary and implications for managers and executives ``Strange’’ ads can rejuvenate a tired old brand Every now and then creative teams in advertising agencies have a rush of blood to the head and produce off-the-wall treatments for well known brands. And sometimes the client bites. When UK beer brand Boddington’s relaunched as ``the cream of Manchester’’ by apeing face cream and perfume ads the brand took off (and the agency raked in the awards). Levi’s broke their tradition of sexy male models and old pop songs when they introduced ``Flat Eric’’ a cartoon character. It worked. Us folk in advertising are always looking to push the boundaries for brand owners but we have not been doing so in a considered way. Rather we have been acting on ``gut feel’’ and instinct. What Lange and Dahlen do here is to provide something of a rationale for dramatic changes in advertising treatment. Should we always stick with the knitting? Conventional wisdom ± backed up with some research ± has always argued for consistency, gradual change and the protection of brand position and personality. The brand is too important an asset for the firm to take huge risks by indulging the eccentric ideas of advertising creative teams. Off-the-wall advertising can only serve to indulge the advertiser and is likely to damage the brand. Lange and Dahlen set out to challenge this position by arguing that ``. . . some brands may benefit from advertising breaking the consistency, using `strange’ ads that are incongruent with the associations consumers hold with the brand.’’ And, say Lange and Dahlen, it is the familiar brands ± the big brands ± that stand to gain most from this radical approach. Lange and Dahlen’s argument is built round what we already know about information incongruency having positive effects as a result of increased memorability. After years of familiar, even boring, advertising from a big brand, the ``strange’’ ad acts to reinvigorate consumers by stimulating curiosity, interest and involvement. The new and unusual ad grabs the consumer’s attention leading to a situation of ``. . . more cognitive processing and careful elaboration which in turn makes the ad/information more persuasive and the response more favourable.’’ What about the risks of breaking the mould? Surely, despite the added stimulus of the ``strange’’ ad, there are still huge risks? We cannot assume that the consumer response will be positive ± the existing advertising is not broken, why change it? The flip side of this argument, which Lange and Dahlen note, is that the boring old advertising approach can lead to over-familiarity, boredom and apathy. Hardly the kind of response we want to get from consumers! However, the less familiar the consumer is with the brand, the greater the risks associated with ``strange’’ advertising. What Lange and Dahlen show when they test their idea, is that the brands that gain from significant changes in advertising treatment are the bigger, more familiar brands. Smaller, less familiar brands do not get the same advantages from a radical shift in advertising treatment ± indeed such a shift may damage the brand. It is clear that adopting a radical, different advertising approach represents a considerable risk even for the most powerful brand. Lange and Dahlen

4 60


report that advertising incongruent with the brand is less readily recalled by the consumer. As a result, normal approaches to ad testing and screening are likely to rule out the radical treatment since the most widely used tests involve assessment of advertising recall. What Lange and Dahlen argue is that the lower recall numbers are acceptable for the bigger brand because, as their research shows, the ``strange’’ ad increases brand memorability. And, in the final analysis, it is the brand we want the consumer to recall not just the ad. However, to achieve this response, the consumer has to be familiar with the brand in the first place. Familiarity breeds contempt If the old advertising is working, why change? Brand awareness figures are high, the advertising retains a high level of recall and the consumer continues to buy. What Lange and Dahlen suggest is that familiarity with the brand does not translate automatically into liking for the brand. Moreover, consumers will attribute their familiarity to seeing a lot of very familiar ads and, if pressed, will probably express boredom and perhaps irritation with the old advertising treatment. As Lange and Dahlen point out the ``strange’’ ad for a familiar brand ``. . . made it easier for consumers to remember the brand and harder to remember the ad, thus making the brand more salient with a decreased risk of advertising wear-out.’’ The ``strange’’ ad makes consumers work a little harder in order to link the incongruent treatment with the established brand ``schema’’ in their minds. While familiarity may breed contempt, unfamiliarity presents a different problem. The unfamiliar brand does not have an established ``schema’’ in the mind of the consumer, so faced with an incongruous treatment that consumer has no reference point. As a result, the consumer is likely not only to fail to recall the ad itself but also to fail to recognise the brand being advertised. For the smaller brand, radical changes to advertising treatment are clearly a very bad idea ± whatever your advertising agency says, stick to the tried and tested approach in order to build the levels of brand awareness. Without this awareness, unusual, radical ± ``strange’’ ± advertising simply does not work. The work here presents advertisers with a further option in the development of advertising strategy and, perhaps more importantly, it provides advertising planners with a basis on which to research and test radical advertising approaches. Many planners have argued against relying on recall testing since it always produces more of the same advertising (if I test an ad I have run against an ad I have not run, the former will almost always get a high level of recall). In addition to ad recognition, we should also be looking to assess brand recognition and memorability. Finally, advertisers need to recognise that many consumers see advertising as part of the entertainment they are exposed to. A rationale for ``strange’’ advertising is that it sustains consumer interest and, over time, levels of ad awareness will rise as consumer becomes familiar with the new approach. (A preÂcis of the article ``Let’s be strange: brand familiarity and ad-brand incongruency’’. Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)


4 61