Advertising Creativity Matters

Advertising Creativity Matters

MICAEL DAHLEN

Stockholm School of

Economics

micael,[email protected]

SARA ROSENGREN

Stockholm School of

Economics

sara.rosengren@hhs,se

FREDRIK TORN

Stockholm School of

Economics

fredrik,[email protected]

Could "wasteful" advertising creativity that does not add to the functionaiity of the

advertisement (i.e., it neither enhances recaii and iiking of the advertising, nor

increases comprehension and persuasiveness of the communicated message) be

useful? An expérimentai study shows that it can. By signaling greater effort on behaif

of the advertiser and a greater ability of the brand, advertising creativity enhances

both brand interest and perceived brand quaiity. The effects are mediated by

consumer-perceived creativity, suggesting that consumers are important Judges of

creativity. Bringing advertising creativity into new iight, the resuits provide impiications

for the development, measurement, and positioning of creative advertising.

INTRODUCTION

There is no guarantee that creativity in an adver-tisement makes it more memorable or appealingto consumers (Kover, Goldberg, and James, 1995).In fact, research by, for example, Kover, James,and Sonner (1997) suggests that many creativeadvertising efforts may be wasted, in the sensethat they do not add to the functionality of theadvertisement (i.e., they neither enhance con-sumer recall and liking of the advertising, norincrease comprehension and persuasiveness of thecommunicated message). However, this article ar-gues that such wasteful advertising creativity mayhave other positive effects. Previous research onadvertising spending has found that, when by-passing functional aspects of high spending, forexample, that bigger advertisements increase at-tention or that repeated exposures facilitate com-prehension and breed liking, wasteful expenseshave positive effects on brand perceptions (e.g..Ambler and HoUier, 2004; Kirmani and Rao, 2000).The present research investigates whether or notthe same conclusion follows with respect to ad-vertising creativity.

A common view is that creativity is a mission ofthe entire advertising industry, its raison d'être

(Koslow, Sasser, and Riordan, 2003). The fact that

advertising agencies spend a great deal of timeand energy competing for creative awards, eventhough they are not sure that these efforts actuallyincrease the functionality of their work, suggeststhat creativity is perceived to be important in itsown right (e.g., Helgesen, 1994; Kover, James, andSonner, 1997). In a frequently cited study. Gross(1972) showed that wasteful advertising creativityin advertising agencies, in the form of an abun-dance of creative ideas, yield more effective ad-vertisements in the long run. This article takes thenotion of wasteful advertising creativity to thelevel of the individual advertisement to see whetheran abundance of creativity (that does not enhancefunctionality) in a single advertisement yields pos-itive effects.

Building on the research on marketing signals,we suggest it does. Studies show that the veryemployment of various marketing elements, suchas warranties (long-lasting) or price (correlateswith quality), sends signals about the brand thatguide consumer evaluations and choice (e.g., Kir-mani and Rao, 2000). Advertising expense hasbeen found to be a signal that consumers interpretas the marketers' efforts due to their belief in thebrand (Kirmani, 1990; Kirmani and Wright, 1989)or as proof of the brand's superiority or "brand

3 9 2 JDÜBOIIL OF (IDÜERTISinG BESEflRCH September 2 0 0 8 DOI: 10.2501/S002184990808046X

ADVERTISING CREATIVITY MÄHERS

fitness" (Amhler and Hollier, 2004): Thegreater the expense, the more confidentthe marketer and the more fit the brand.Categorizing advertising creativity as amarketing signal, we expect that greatercreativity signals more effort (as creativeadvertising is harder to produce than "no-frills" advertising) and greater fitness (asthe sender must have the knowledge re-sources to take the extra communicativeleap and communicate in a nontraditionalmarmer) and thus produces more favor-able brand perceptions.

By investigating the signaling effects ofadvertising creativity on brand percep-tions, we bypass the functional aspectsthat have previously been in focus in cre-ativity research. Previous research focuseson intermediate effects such as advertis-ing recall, liking, and comprehension (e.g.,Kover, James, and Sonner, 1997; Stone,Besser, and Lewis, 2000; Till and Baack,2005), or different facets of creativity, suchas originality, meaningfulness, and emo-tions (e.g., Ang and Low, 2000; Kover,Goldberg, and James, 1995; White andSmith, 2001). As advertising (and creativ-ity) can take many shapes and forms, it isnot very surprising that most authors seemto agree that the research on advertisingcreativity to date is troubled by contradic-tory and inconclusive findings (e.g., El-Murad and West, 2004; Koslow, Sasser,and Riordan, 2003: Stone, Besser, andLewis, 2000). For instance, some (award-winning, which is often the criterion inthese studies) creative advertising may bevery original and yield high recall, butlow liking, whereas other advertising couldproduce strong emotions and liking, butbe harder to recall. Avoiding such obsta-cles may be achievable by focusing oncreativity as a signal in itself, rather thanits facets and intermediate effects.

The present study includes a number ofelements that are novel to advertising cre-ativity research. First, rather than using

real advertisements as representatives ofmore versus less creative advertising, thestudy manipulates advertising creativityin the same manner as Ambler and Hol-lier (2004) manipulate advertising ex-pense. Thus, we are able to compareadvertising for the same brands with thesame messages and control for the func-tionality of the tested advertisements. Mostresearch to date has employed real adver-tisements, which makes it harder to dis-cern the effects of the creativity in itself,as it also becomes a matter of differentbrands with different messages. Second,our manipulation does not produce cre-ative advertising that is "outstanding,"but rather moderately creative. As notedby Haberland and Dacin (1992), the focuson awards creates a dichotomous view ofadvertising as creative yes/no. It is morelikely that advertising varies in its degreeof creativity. Not all advertisements winprizes for creativity, but that does notmean that those advertisements are notcreative. Third, in addition to manipu-lating advertising creativity, we alsomeasure consumer-perceived creativity.Previous research has usually kept thedegree of creativity "hidden" from con-sumers, utilizing awards and expert judg-ments as assessments of creativity. Whereasadvertising effects materialize to a consid-erable degree without consumer aware-ness (e.g.. Heath and Nairn, 2005), thepresent study tests the notion that con-sumer explicit thoughts about advertisingcreativity matter.

ADVERTISING CREATIVITY AS A

MARKETING SIGNAL

Most markets are flooded with productsfor consumers to choose between. As con-sumers are unable to sample all productsthat are available to them, or even assessthe quality of all the products they haveactually consumed, they rely on market-ing signals (Kirmani and Rao, 2000). Ad-

vertising expense is the marketing signalthat has gained most attention in adver-tising research. According to Kirmani andWright (1989), advertising expense is anindicator of marketing effort: The moremoney spent on advertising, the greaterthe effort—meaning that the advertisermust really believe in the product. Spend-ing a great deal of money on advertisingis a more powerful signal to consumersabout the quality of the product than thecontent of the advertising, as the adver-tiser "put their money where their mouthis." More money means greater risk, andthus consumers feel safe that the adver-tiser will deliver on her promise (Kir-mani, 1997).

In tests of advertising expense, Kirmani(1990,1997) manipulates advertising sizes,colors, endorsers, and repetition and findsthat they may all increase perceived mar-keting effort. Interestingly, Kirmani (1990)notes that it is possible that perceivedadvertising quality ("includes the care andcreativity used to design the ad") couldalso have an effect on perceptions of mar-keting effort. However, Kirmani (1990) doesnot manipulate advertising quality (andmore specifically, advertising creativity).Such a manipulation would result in per-ceptions of greater marketing effort.

Coming up with a creative concept ismore demanding for the advertiser thansimply applying a standard solution basedone's own or others' previous efforts. Con-sumers are "advertising literate" enoughtoday to infer that creative advertising isprobably the result of a development pro-cess that is both longer and more costly(they may even refer this to the employ-ment of a "fancy advertising agency").

HI: Advertising creativity increasesperceived marketing effort.

Ambler and Hollier (2004) suggest that

advertising expense may not only serve

September 2 0 0 8 JDUIIOIIL OF HDUERTISIOG RESEHRCH 3 9 3

ADVERTISING CREATIVITY IVIATTERS

An extra degree of creativity may send signais about

tiie advertiser tiiat rub off on consumer perceptions of

tiie brand.

as a signal of effort, but also as a moredirect signal of "brand fitness." Referringto the biological theory of handicapping,they argue that advertising expense maybe a signal of wealth—arguably, the ad-vertiser can afford such wastefully expen-sive advertising. The wealth, in tum, couldbe interpreted as proof of previous suc-cess due to the brand's great ability toserve the market. Extending the reason-ing to advertising creativity, wasteful cre-ativity (i.e., the surplus creativity that doesnot add to the functionality of the adver-tisement) could work as a signal of wealthas well, wealth in the form of knowledgeand smartness. For example, the literatureon rhetorical figures (which are a form ofwasteful creativity as they convey n\es-sages in unnecessarily clever ways) sug-gests that they may signal smartness onbehalf of the sender (e.g., Toncar andMunch, 2001, 2003). However, this notionhas not been tested.

Ambler and Hollier's (2004) concept of"brand fitness" is especially interesting inlight of the growing body of research onperceived corporate ability. Perceived cor-porate ability refers to consumers' beliefsthat the company is able to improve thequality of existing products and to gener-ate new products innovatively (Luo andBhattacharya, 2006). Studies show that per-ceived corporate ability influences the suc-cess of new-product introductions andmarketing activities, as well as the marketvalue of the entire company. In fact, per-ceived corporate ability may be the mostpowerful source of sustainable competi-tive advantage (Brown and Dacin, 1997;Luo and Bhattacharya, 2006).

Advertising creativity could be a signal

of brand ability (the equivalent of corpo-

rate ability on the individual, advertised,

brand level). Coming up with a creative

advertising concept signals the ability and

desire to "think outside the box" and think

in new and different ways compared to

the competition and compared to the

brand's history. Thus, advertising creativ-

ity says less about the brand's historical

success and more about what could be

expected from it in the future.

H2: Advertising creativity increases

customers' perceived abuity in the

brand.

ADVERTISING CREATIVITY'S EFFECTS

ON BRAND PERCEPTIONS

Recent advertising literature argues thatthe most important and reliable mea-sures of advertising effectiveness are con-sumers' perceptions and experiences ofthe brand rather than of the advertisingitself. This influence is due to the factsthat consumers are not able to rememberor discern all the advertising they encoun-ter (e.g.. Heath and Nairn, 2005; Weil-bacher, 2003). Powerful advertising affectsconsumers' perceptions of the brand im-mediately (Hall, 2002). As creativity issupposed to make powerful advertising,the expectation is that more versus lesspowerful advertising results in immedi-ate effects on brand perceptions.

The main brand perception that hasbeen uncovered in previous studies ofmarketing signals is perceived quality. Asmentioned previously, perceived market-ing effort signals confidence on behalf of

the advertiser (e.g., Kirmani and Rao, 2000).

Perceived brand ability would also signal

high quality, as cor\sumers expect the brand

to improve quality over the competition.

Therefore, the hypothesis is that advertis-

ing creativity enhances perceived brand

quality.

H3: Advertising creativity enhancescustomers' perceptions of brandquality.

Conventional wisdom holds that creativeadvertising pushes the message intoconsumers' minds (e.g., El-Murad andWest, 2004; Kover, James, and Sonner,1997). However, recent literature arguesthat the individual brand does not reallyhave much to say (e.g., Ehrenberg, Bar-nard, Kennedy, and Bloom, 2002; Heathand Nairn, 2005). In the massive mar-ketspace and mindspace competition, it isincreasingly difficult to be unique andvirtually impossible to persuade consum-ers to buy your product (Weilbacher, 2003).In line with this notion, a survey amongtop-level agency créatives ranked the same-ness among brands as the number onereason for improved creativity; rather thancommunicating a specific message (whichis likely to resemble competitors'), adver-tising creativity must make the brand in-teresting and exciting (Reid, Whitehill King,and DeLorme, 1998).

This goal is particularly relevant to es-tablished brands, which make up the ma-jority of the marketplace. The greatestenemies to these brands are predictabilityand consumer disinterest (Machleit, Allen,and Madden, 1993). Brands must contin-uously reinvent themselves and challengeexpectations to stay in touch with consum-ers. This touch could be achievable withcreative advertising. Creative advertisingin itself suggests that the brand has some-thing interesting to offer, as it signals ef-fort and confidence, and ability to deliver

3 9 4 JOÜIIIlflL Df flDÜERTISinG RESEflRCH September 2 0 0 8


something different from the competition.

Therefore, the study expects a positive

relationship between advertising creativ-

ity and brand interest.

H4: Advertising creativity enhances

brand interest.

CONSUMERS AS JUDGES OF

ADVERTISING CREATIVITY

Most research on advertising creativityconceptualizes it as a "hidden tool" foradvertising professionals to create power-ful advertising. That is, it is impor-tant that the professionals perceive theadvertising to be creative for it to be ef-fective, but consumers are not supposedto think in such terms, rather just to likethe advertising, remember it, and selectthe brand (e.g., Koslow, Sasser, and Rior-dan, 2003; Stone, Besser, and Lewis, 2000;Till and Baack, 2005). However, a profes-sional judgment of advertising creativityis no guarantee that the advertising willbe successful (e.g., Kover, James, and Son-ner, 1997). For instance. Stone, Besser, andLewis (2000) found that while 70 percentof the advertising that consumers remem-bered and liked was categorized as cre-ative by trained judges, 47 percent ofstrongly disliked advertising was also cat-egorized as creative by the judges.

White and Smith (2001) compare cre-ativity ratings between advertising profes-sionals and the general public and foundthat the two groups differed in their rat-ings. The question is, who is the betterjudge? Kover, James, and Sonner (1997)argue that less professionalism is neededin the judgments of creativity, as at theend of the day, consumers' perceptionsare what matter. The present study putsthis argument to the test by testing whethermanipulated advertising creativity (pre-tested on advertising professionals) has adirect effect on our hypothesized vari-ables, without consumers being aware

of this "hidden tool," or if consumer per-

ceptions of advertising creativity are nec-

essary and mediate the effects. The

hypothesis is that consumer perception of

the advertising creativity is the first step

in the process that leads to all the hypoth-

esized effects in H1-H4:

H5: The effects of advertising creativ-

ity are mediated by consumer-

perceived creativity.

METHOD

To test the hypotheses, we must be able tocompare responses between consumerswho have been exposed to a more cre-ative versus a less creative advertisementfor the same brand with the same mes-sage. Furthermore, to test with certaintywhether consumer-perceived advertisingcreativity is an intervening, mediating stepbetween manipulated creativity and ourhypothesized effects, we must measurecreativity perception before versus afterthe other variables (for H5 to hold, cre-ativity perception should have a greatereffect when measured before the othervariables, cf. Kenny, 1975). To this end,we chose a 2 (more creative/less creativeadvertisement) X 2 (perceived creativitybefore/after) experimental design whereinformants were randomly assigned to oneof the four cells.

To avoid stimulus specific effects, fourdifferent brands and accompanying mes-sages were used for a total of 16 experi-ment cells. All four brands are establishedand well known in their respective prod-uct categories (pain relief, coffee, vodka,and condoms). We chose well-knownbrands for two reasons. First, the majorityof advertising in major media are forestablished brands (e.g., Kent, 2002). Sec-ond, as consumer perceptions of well-known brands are harder to influence thanthose of unfamiliar brands, the test brandsmake a more robust test of our hypotheses.

Research instrument development

Similar to Ambler and Hollier (2004), wewanted to ensure that only the wasteful-ness of creativity would differ betweenadvertisements, not their functionality withrespect to what was communicated. There-fore, we needed to develop advertisingstimuli differing only with respect to thecreative execution. To this end, a methodsimilar to that of Toncar and Munch (2003)was used. Four pairs of print advertise-ments were developed, one pair for eachbrand. Print advertisements usually havethree main elements: the brand, text, andpictorial. In our manipulation, the brandand the pictorial was kept constant, whilethe text was varied to communicate thesame message in a more (employing rhe-torical figures, cf. Tom and Eves, 1999) orless (without rhetorical figures) creativeway. The number of words was keptconstant.

The advertisements were pretested tomake sure that the pairs communicatedthe same message, and equally strongly.Twenty plus twenty consumers from thetarget population (below) were asked"how well do you agree that the adver-tisement's main message is. .." and ratedone of the advertisements from eachpair on a scale of 1 = totally disagree/7 = totally agree. There were no signifi-cant differences within the pairs

(A^more creative = 5.4 verSUS Mjess creative =

5.5).Next, 12 plus 12 advertising profession-

als from eight major agencies rated oneof the advertisements from each pair oncreativity (scale: 1 = not at all creative/7 = very creative). The more creativeadvertisements rated significantly higherthan the less creative advertisements

(Mmore creative = 4.0 verSUS Mjess creative =

2.7, p < 0.01). Notably, although signifi-

cantly different from each other, neither

of the two groups of advertisements was

seen as particularly creative. However,

September 2 0 0 8 JOURIIIIL OF HDUERTISIOG RESERRCH 3 9 5


By focusing too much on award-winning advertising and

treating creativity as a yes/no variabie, one misses out

on ail the improvements that can be made and effects

that can be attained at more moderate levéis.

we are not interested in the absolute lev-

els of creativity; the goal is to compare

differences in degree of creativity. This

approach differs from most previous

research, which often employs "outstand-

ing" (award-winning) creative advertise-

ments. The fact that the degree of creativity

is fairly low in our more creative adver-

tisements makes our test of the effects

of advertising creativity more robust. It

also makes the results more applicable

in practice, as most advertisements do

not win awards, but may still be creative

(e.g., Haberland and Dacin, 1992; Kover,

James, and Sonner, 1997).

Procedure

We employed a procedure similar to Am-bler and Hollier (2004). The participantswere part of an internet panel of a pro-fessional market research firm and re-cruited to represent a cross section of theworking population (56/44 female-malebreakdown, age range 18-65 years, aver-age 39 years). In total, 1,284 consumersparticipated in the study, making a cellsize of approximately 80 respondents.Asked to participate in an advertisingpretest, consumers were randomly ex-posed to one of the stimulus print adver-tisements online and then directly filledout a questionnaire.

Measures

A number of measures were employed totest the advertisement's functionality(which is supposed to be the same acrossconditions):

Brand identification was measured as an

open-ended question, where respondentstyped in the brand name they believedwas featured in the advertisement. Key

message identification was measured by

asking respondents to tick the correct mes-sage out of four alternatives (the alterna-tives were the same across all cells andwere designed to be plausible for all fourbrands). Furthermore, we measured diffi-

culty of comprehension (1 = very easy to

comprehend/7 = very difficult to compre-hend), advertising attitude ("What is youropinion about the advertisement you justsaw?"), and brand attitude ["What is youropinion of (brand)?," both on a scale from1 (very bad) to 7 (very good)].

We also measured brand familiarity andprice estimates to rule out confounding ef-fects of consumer knowledge or compet-ing signals (cf. Kirmani and Rao, 2000).Similar to Till and Baack (2005) familiar-ity with the brand was measured beforeexposure (1 = never heard of it/7 = knowit very well). Price estimates were mea-sured after exposure with an open-endedquestion where respondents were askedto type in how much they estimated thatthe advertised product cost (employingfamiliar brands and products in the study,we expected no differences between con-ditions). We calculated differences in priceestimates within the advertising pairs andcompared them by product category.

The following measures were used forthe hypothesis tests:

Perceived marketing effort (HI) was mea-

sured with two items on a 7-point scale.

"How much do you think developmentof the advertisement cost?" (1 = verycheap/7 = very expensive), and "Howmuch time do you think has been de-voted to the development of the adver-tisement?" (1 = very little/7 = very much).We included the variables both separatelyand as an index (r = 0.52) in the analyses.

Perceived brand ability (H2) was mea-

sured with three items (1 = do not agree/7 = agree completely): "(Brand) is smart,""(Brand) is likely to develop valuable prod-ucts in the future," and "(Brand) is good atsolving consumers' problems." We includedthe items both separately and as an index(Cronbach's alpha = 0.83) in the analyses.

Perceived brand quality (H3) was as-

sessed by asking: "What is the generalquality level of the brand?" with answersgiven on a scale from 1 (very low quality)to 7 (very high quality).

Brand interest (H4) was measured withtwo items on a 7-point scale: "I find (brand)interesting," and "I want to buy the brand"(1 = do not agree/7 = agree completely).We included the variables both separatelyand as an index (r = 0.68) in the analyses.

Perceived advertising creativity (H5) was

measured by asking: "To what extent doyou think that the advertisement you justsaw is creative?" (1 - not at all creative/7 = very creative). The question was placedbefore the measures of perceived effort(HI) and brand ability (H2) in one-half ofthe questionnaires and after the same mea-sures in the other half. This design en-ables us to test the direction of causalitiesbetween the variables (Kenny, 1975). Ithas been used in previous research on, forexample, the causal effects between slo-gan evaluations and brand perceptions(Dahlén and Rosengren, 2005).

RESULTS

Manipulation and confound checks

Comparing the groups of more creativeversus less creative advertisements.

3 9 6 JOÜBflflL OF flDUERTISlOG flESEflRCH September 2 0 0 8


perceived creativity rated significantly TABLE 1

higher for the group of more creative ad- Effects of Advertising Creativityvertisements (M = 3.94 versus M = 3.37,

p < 0.01), suggesting that our manipula- More Creative Less Creativetion of advertising creativity was success- Advertisements, Advertisements, Plannedful. See Table 1. Furthermore, the analyses M {SD) M (SD) Comparisonsinclude testing for differences in function- ,. . , .

Manipulation checkality between the groups with respect to r, • ^ • •

• 5 i- F Perceived creativity 3,94 (1.51) 3.37 (1.64) p < 0.01brand identification, message identifica-tion, comprehension, and advertising and ^^'^^ °^ advertising functionalitybrand attitudes. Only comprehension and ....^rapd identification 0.99(0.26) 0,98(0.28) n.s.advertising attitude differed between con- iVIessage identification 0.99(0.18) 0,99(0,11) n,s,ditions, suggesting that the more creative Comprehension 4.96 (1.71) 4.64 (1.79) p < 0.01advertisements were more difficult to com-

, , . , ,., , , , Advertising attitude 4.08(1.47) 3.81(1.28) p < 0.01prehend and were better liked than the ° • • •• ••less creative advertisements. To rule out ..... .'[ üf?.. . .'! .' . .? f^.:^l.'íh^^). ^.^^..{hf!'^). ".:!;competing effects from these variables. Confounding variablesthey were included as covariates in the Brand familiarity 4-,58 (2,23) 4.44 (2.23) n.s.subsequent analyses, meaning that these ^ . ^ . . ,.„ „ „ ^ „, . . .

^ •> ° Estimated pnce, difference +0.04 Not significantlydifferences were accounted for in the re- ,. ^ ,.„ ,

by product category different from zero,suits. Brand familiarity and estimatedprices did not differ between the twogroups, suggesting that they should not ....l^'P^íy«^.««?^* 3:28.(1:45) 2.96 (1.58) p < 0.01intervene in the effects on the dependent Time 3.14 (1.54) 2.78 (1,50) p < 0.01variables. Expense 3,41 (1,75) 3.16 (1.71) p < 0.01

H2Hypotiiesis tests_. ^ AÂxir wA / u- •. Perceived abiiity 3.67(1,71) 3,42(1.40) p < 0.01First, we ran a MANOVA (multivariate • • • • •• ••analysis of variance) on all dependent vari- ....Smart 3.22 (;i.26) 3.-.04.(1.37) P..<.0;10ables to test the hypotheses simulta- .Develop valuable products 4.25 (1.19) 4.00 (1,70) p < 0.01neously. Comprehension and advertising „ . ., . ^ . . ,^ ,-^^ ^ ^ , r-^

' ^ & QQQ(J problem solver 3.44 (1.51) 3.12 (1,50) p < 0,01attitude were included as covariates andhad significant effects on the dependentvariables. Even when accounting for com- ...^'^^^y^.^ViuM)! 4.89 (1.20) 4.64 (1.21) p < 0.01peting effects from these covariates, ad- H4vertising creativity had significant effects Brand interest 3.86 (1.35) 3.56 (1.37) p < 0.01

on all dependent variables (F(ll, 1,084)= interesting 3.68(1.49) 3.44(1,52) p < 0.0514.24, p < 0.01, WUkes'lambda, 0.94). Next,

, , , . Purchase intention 4.00 (1.72) 3.73 (1.69) p < 0,01we employed planned comparisons to testeach hypothesis individually (Table 1), Al- Noie: f fl2, l,08i) = 24.24, p < 0.02, W¡7te' lambda, 0.94; n.s. = not significant.though the absolute differences are notthat large (which is likely due to the mod-est differences in our manipulated creativ- effort. In support of the hypothesis, a shows, both perceived expense and per-ity), they are all significant, suggesting comparison between the two groups ceived time in design of the advertise-that the effects are systematic. reveals that the more creative advertisements follow similar patterns.

Hypothesis HI states that advertising ments rated significantly higher on per- Hypothesis H2 states that advertising cre-creativity increases perceived marketing ceived effort than the less creative. As Table 1 ativity increases perceived brand ability.

September 2 0 0 8 JDUIinflL OF RDUERTISIOG RESEHRCH 3 9 7

ADVERTISING CREATIVITY MATTERS

A comparison hetween the two groups sup- TABLE 2

ports H2 (refer to Table 1). Consumers ex- Regression Coefficients, Test of Mediation by Perceived Effortposed to the more creative advertisements

rated the brand's ability significantly higher a n d Brand Ability

than those exposed to the less creative ad- Standardized

vertisements (M„o,e creative = 3.67 versus variables Beta Coefficient t-Statistic p<Miesscreative = 3.42, p < 0.01). The brand'sperceived smartness (marginally signifi- dependent variable

cant at p < 0.10), ability to develop valu- ....P^^î^^.^f^^í ÍJr'^'íy

able products, and ability as a problem Independent variables

solver are all rated higher in response to Advertising creativity 0.21 2.12 0.01

the more creative advertisements. Advertising creativity (after inclusion of 0.15 1.46 n.s.

Testing H3, comparisons were made be- perceived marketing effort)

tween the more and the less creative ad-Perceived marketing effort 0.16 4.32 0.01

vertisements on rated brand quality. Themean perceived brand quality is M = 4.89 Advertising creativity (after inclusion of 0.11 1.27 n.s.

for the more creative advertisements and ?.^'^^^}^^^..^.^^!}^..^^'!]]}È

M = 4.64 for the less creative advertise- Perceived brand ability 0.61 18.92 0.01

ments ( » < 0.01), supporting H3. _ ^ * • K,^^ " r r 6 Dependent variable

Brand interest was significantly higher „ . . .^ .>' & Brand interest

among consumers exposed to the morecreative advertisements than those who '^^^P^ndent variables

saw the less creative advertisements ....^^^'^''^éoreatmy, 0,17 2.15 0.01(Aímore creative = 3.86 versus Miesscreative = Advertising Creativity (after inclusion of 0.14 1.75 0.103.56, p < 0.01), which supports H4. A perceived marketing effort)

breakdown of the two components re- Perceived marketing effort 0.15 1.87 0.10veals a more significant effect on pur-

Advertising creativity (after inclusion of 0.10 1.31 n.s.chase mtention (» < 0.01) than on the

perceived brand ability)brand s mterestmgness (p < 0.05).

The development of H3 and H4 was ....^.^'^^^j^^^^^.^^'}!^..^^'!}]^)'.. ?.-.49 18.47 0.01

based on the reasoning that perceived Note: n.s. = not significant.

marketing effort (HI) and perceived brand

ability (H2) should work as signals of

quality and interestingness. To put this

reasoning to a direct test, we performed added as independent variables in the brand quality or brand interest. A quick

tests of mediation following Baron and same regressions, and (3) the effect of glance at the beta coefficients in Table 2

Kermy's (1986) frequently used procedure advertising creativity as independent vari- also reveals that perceived brand ability

(see Table 2). If advertising creativity en- able on the dependents should decrease seems to have a greater effect than per-

hances perceived brand quality and brand significantly as a result of this. As Table 2 ceived marketing effort on the dependent

interest through signals of marketing ef- shows, all three conditions hold. Adver- variables.

fort and brand ability, then (1) advertising tising creativity is a significant single in- Hypothesis H5 states that the effects

creativity should have direct effects on dependent variable in both regressions, in H1-H4 are mediated by consumer-

brand quality and brand interest as the but when perceived marketing effort and perceived advertising creativity. To get an

single independent variable in regres- brand ability are added in the regres- overview of the effects of perceived ad-

sions, (2) perceived marketing effort and sions, the effects of advertising creativity vertising creativity on all the dependent

brand ability should have direct effects decrease substantially, so that it has no variables, we ran a MANOVA comparing

on brand quality and brand interest when significant influence on either perceived the lower and upper thirds of perceived

3 9 8 JOUBnilL DF flDUEBTISinO RESEflRCH Sep tember 2 0 0 8


creativity (below 3 versus above 4) as the work as signals and mediated the effects Consumer-perceived advertising creativ-

factor (and including the same covariates of advertising creativity. To see whether ity is a rarely used measure. Some au-

as in the previous analysis). It had sig- these signals are contingent upon con- thors suggest that consumers may not

nificant effects on all the dependents sumer perceptions of the advertisement's be able and suited as judges of creativity

(F(4,729) = 80.40, p < 0.01, Wilkes' lambda, creativity, we tested whether (1) manip- (e.g.. Till and Baack, 2005). In light of

0.53). Planned comparisons are listed in ulated advertising creativity had direct this, one could question our tests of H5.

Table 3. As the table reveals, the effects of effects on perceived marketing effort and Could the relationships between consumer-

perceived advertising creativity are sub- brand ability as the single independent perceived advertising creativity and the

stantial and seemingly greater that those variable in regressions, (2) consumer- marketing signals actually be a halo ef-

of manipulated ("hidden") advertising perceived advertising creativity has di- feet; that is, could consumer ratings of

creativity. rect effects on perceived marketing effort advertising creativity be a result of their

To test whether consumer-perceived and brand ability in the same regres- perceptions of the advertiser's effort and

advertising creativity mediated the ef- sions, and (3) the effect of advertising ability? To discern the direction of causal-

fects of advertising creativity, we used creativity as independent variable on ity and ascertain that consumer-perceived

Baron and Kenny's (1986) procedure once the dependents decreases significantly as creativity precedes and causes the signals,

again (see Table 4). The previous media- a result of this. As Table 4 shows, all we designed the study according to Ken-

tion test reveals that perceived market- three conditions hold. The results thus ny's (1975) test of causal direction. As

ing effort and brand ability did indeed support H5. described in the Method section, we mea-

sured consumer-perceived creativity be-

fore the other measures in one-half of the

TADI C O questionnaires, and after the other mea-

sures in the second half. Table 5 lists the

Effects of Perceived Advertising Creativity correlations between consumer-perceived... ^ , advertising creativity and the two market-High Low -„ . ^ „ . , ing signal variables for both conditions.Perceived Perceived^ . . ^ . . As seen in Table 5, the correlation coef-Creativity, Creativity, Planned

ficients are directionally greater for theM (SD) M {SD) Comparisons ^ ^

measures of perceived creativity taken• prior to the other measures. Fischer's r-to-z

....P^.'P^.'y^.l^Ô':* 3.67 .(1.29) 2.41 (1.55) P,<,0.01 test (Cohen and Cohen, 1983) reveals that

Time 3.68 (1.43) 2.12 (1.57) p < 0.01 the coefficients differed significantly be-

Expense 3.67 (1.55) 2.70 (1.99) p < 0.01 *^^^" conditions. The analysis shows that(1) significant correlations occur between

H2consumer-perceived creativity and the mar-

Perceived abiiity 4.41 (1.27) 2.67 (2.50) p < 0.01 , .. . , j /o u i •

' >. ; >. ; " r...7. ketmg signals, and (2) the correlations are

Smart 4.02 (1.53) 2.37 (1.40) p < 0.01 significantly greater when consumer-

Develop valuable products 5.02 (1.25) 3.35 (1.55) p < 0.01 perceived creativity precedes the other vari-

ables, implying a causal direction fromGood problem solver 4.20 (2.44) 2.29 (1.67) p < 0.01

the former onto the latter.H3

Perceived brand quaiity 5.48 (1.16) 4.02 (1.50) p < 0.01 DiSCUSSIONH4 Waste in advertising creativity matters.

Brand interest 4.62 (1.51) 2.56 (1.41) p < 0.01 The results of the present study show that

Interesting 4.50 (1.62) 2.39 (1.43) p < 0.01 ^^^ ""^^ ^"'^^^^ ^^ * ^ ^^^^- ^^^^^' *^^"improving the functionality of the adver-

Purchase intention 4.73 (1.71) 2.73 (1.78) p < 0.01 .. ^ j u ..u>. ! .\ ; " r:..7. tisement and push the message into

Note: F(4, 729) = 80.40, p < 0.01, Wilkes' lambda, 0.53. Consumers' minds, which conventional

September 2 0 0 8 JDUROHL OF RDUERTISIIIG RESEHRCH 3 9 9


lished brands that consumers were familiar

Regression Coefficients, Test of Mediation by Perceived_ . . keting signals argues that they are rele-

Advertismg Creativity , . , ,^ .\.s ¿ vant mamly when communicating with

Standardized consumers that are unfamiliar with the

gg^g brand (e.g., Kirmani and Rao, 2000), ad-

Variables Coefficient t-Statistic p < vertising creativity is a powerful signalwhen communicating familiar brands as

Dependent variable ,,well.

Perceived marketing effortIndependent variables The signaling power of

Advertising creativity 0.18 2.31 0.01 advertising creativity

Advertising creativity (after inclusion of 0.02 0.16 n.s. Recent research suggests that it is becom-

perceived advertising creativity) "^g increasingly harder to position and

differentiate brands with advertising (e.g..Perceived advertising creativity 0.33 7.69 0.01

Ehrenberg, Barnard, Kennedy, and Bloom,

Dependent variable 2002; Heath and Nairn, 2005). As markets

....^.^.'[^^}}'.^^..^.^^!^^..^'!^'!}]^y.. are crowded with similar products, com-

Independent variables municating a unique message or making

Advertising creativity 0.29 2.56 0.01 advertising that sticks is virtually impos-

Advertising creativity (after inclusion of 0.16 0.99 n.s. ^^^^^ ™^ ^^^ '^^ °"^^ *° ' "' ' ^ ' ^ '^^^perceived advertising creativity) " '^ """"'^ important than ever to use

creativity that really pushes the messagePerceived advertising creativity 0.38 5.76 0.01 ,, . / Í T-, », , j , . , r,r,r,A^^ through (cf. El-Murad and West, 2004).

Note: n.s. = noi significant. Another Conclusion would be that creativ-

ity becomes less a matter of message and

content generation, and more a matter of

y/^BLE 5 form and signaling power. Crowded mar-

Correlation Coefficients, Test of Causality ^ *' ^'''^ ^ '' ° differentiation are thevery reasons provided for the use of mar-

Perceived Creativity Perceived Creativity keting signals such as advertising ex-

»•perceived creativity x iVIeasured First iVIeasured Last Difference pense (Kirmani and Rao, 2000). Focusing„ . . „ - „ _ ^ „ , „ „ ^ on the execution in itself, rather than thePerceived effort 0.35 0.24 p < 0.05

actual message, the advertiser could useP^-îved ability 0.42 0.32 p < 0.01 creativity as a powerful marketing signalPerceived quality 0.43 0.34 p < 0.01 as well.

Brand interest 0.49 0.40 p < 0.01 O " ' analysis reveals that more versus

less advertising creativity produces a sig-

nal of marketing effort that is similar to

advertising expense. This is good news,

wisdom holds to be the major benefit of taken as proof of the brand's smartness, as this revelation implies that the adver-

creativity, an extra degree of creativity and ability to solve problems and de- tiser does not need to spend excessive

may send signals about the advertiser that velop valuable products. As a result, con- amounts of money to signal confidence in

rub off on consumer perceptions of the sumers became more interested in the her product. Instead of spending money

brand. In our experiment, more versus brand and perceived it to be of higher on bigger advertising spaces or longer

less creative advertising signaled greater quality. The latter is a particularly inter- and more frequent campaigns (e.g., Kir-

effort on the advertiser's behalf and was esting result, as the study featured estab- mani, 1990, 1997), the same effects may

4 0 0 JDÜBnflL OF eOÜERTISIIlG BESEIIIICH September 2 0 0 8


be attainable by increasing creativity in-stead. Thus, the present study providescompelling evidence that creativity couldbe a way to produce greater results peradvertising dollar.

Creativity seems to have the greatereffect through signaling brand ability thanthrough effort. One reason for this is thatcreativity may fit more logically with whatthe brand, and advertising in general, isperceived to be about: displaying greatsolutions in the advertised product cat-egory. While high versus low creativityalso has a signaling effect through per-ceived effort, most consumers would prob-ably agree that trying hard is not the truepurpose of any advertising or brand. Ad-vertising is not primarily about spendingmoney; advertising is about cleverly pre-senting the brand, and a desirable goalfor any brand should be to deliver a moresophisticated product than the competi-tion (cf. Brown and Dacin, 1997). Thevery (creative) form of the advertisingcould be a powerful clue to consumersabout the brand.

Creativity Is not a yes/no

The presented numbers reveal that theadvertising creativity in our study wasnot very high (ratings were not above themidpoint of the scale for either the moreor the less creative advertisements). Thus,the study does not test the effects of out-standingly creative advertisements. Nei-ther of the advertisements in the studywould likely win an award. Still, at these(relative to previous research and to award-competing advertisements) low levels ofcreativity, increases did matter. This resultprovides evidence that creativity is notonly important at an award-winning level,it is important at any level. By focusingtoo much on award-winning advertisingand treating creativity as a yes/no vari-able, one misses out on all the improve-ments that can be made and effects that

Consumer perceptions of the creativity in an advertise-

ment mediate the advertisement's effects on the brand

and malee the impact of the manipulated ("hidden")

creativity much greater.

can be attained at more moderate levels.Considering the high risk that is associ-ated with high levels of creativity (e.g.,El-Murad and West, 2003; West, 1999),taking baby steps is both easier and saferthan quantum leaps—viewing creativityas a spectrum rather than a high absolutelevel encourages increases in advertisingcreativity across all advertising campaigns.

Creativity is not a iiidden tool

Given the signaling power of advertisingcreativity, viewing creativity as a hiddentool for advertising professionals is amistake. Consumer perceptions of thecreativity in an advertisement mediate theadvertisement's effects on the brand andmake the impact of the manipulated ("hid-den") creativity much greater. This is apowerful case for Kover, James, andSonner's (1997) call to bring consumersinto the agencies' processes and invitethem to partake in the development—anddefinition—of creative advertising.

Whereas copy testing is becoming morecommon in practice, advertising profes-sionals still interpret the results on behalfof the consumer, deciding whether herresponses indicate that the advertisementis creative or not. Not surprisingly, Kos-low, Sasser, and Riordan (2006) find thatformal testing had no effect on agencies'self-assessed creative output. If advertis-ing professionals both ask the questionsand interpret consumers' answers to them,what need is there to actuaUy ask consum-ers? If agencies had included consumer

perceptions of the advertisements' creativ-ity in the testing, Koslow, Sasser, and Rior-dan's findings would probably have beendifferent. As Kover, James, and Sonner(1997) suggest, taking a consumer perspec-tive offers new ideas and nuances in thecreative process and provides more con-crete feedback on the creative level of theadvertising that would facilitate bench-marking and enhancement of the creativeoutput.

In enhancing perceived brand ability,the very creative form of advertising couldbe a way of branding. As suggested in thecorporate ability literature, ability couldbe a powerful positioning in itself (Biehaland Sheinin, 2007; Brown and Dacin, 1997).For brands that have no particular uniquefeature, becoming increasingly commonwith the overwhelming number of alter-natives available in most markets, abilityin itself could be a sustainable source ofadvantage leveraging consumer expecta-tions and trust in any product the brandintroduces. This view is particularly inter-esting considering the trend toward con-tinuously releasing new products underthe same brand (Biehal and Sheinin, 2007).

The research on marketing signals fo-cuses mainly on unfamiliar brands (Kir-mani and Rao, 2000). Whereas it still needsto be tested, creativity should have impor-tant effects on unfamiliar brands as well,as they may benefit more from marketingsignals in general. However, the presentstudy shows that high versus low creativ-ity works as a signal for familiar and

September 2 0 0 8 JDÜRHIIL OF BDÖERTISIIIG RESEflRCH 4 0 1


Creative advertising does increase consumer interest in

the brands, not by communicating a new message, but by

communicating the same message in another way.

ations and Consumer Product Responses." Jour-

nal of Marketing 61, 1 (1997): 68-84.

COHEN, JACOB, and PATRICI COHEN. Applied

Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the

Behavioral Sciences. Hiilsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1983.

established brands. Such brands make upthe bulk of advertising in major media(Kent, 2002), They need to stay interestingto consumers even when they have noth-ing new to say (Machleit, Allen, and Mad-den, 1993), Creative advertising doesincrease consumer interest in the brands,not by communicating a new message,but by communicating the same messagein another way.

The present study focuses on a smallnumber of advertisements for consumerproducts. We employed only one expo-sure that was forced on consumers. Ourexperimental design was a way to testpreviously uncovered effects of creativityin a controlled setting. This way, we showthat advertising creativity may work indifferent ways than in previous literatureand have powerful effects. Whether theseeffects materialize in a real setting (withnoise, less motivated consumers), and fordifferent kinds of products, must be sub-ject to further research,

MICAEL DAHLÉN is a professor of marketing at the

Stockholm School of Economics, His research fo-

cuses on innovative advertising and brand strategies,

with the ambition to join creativity, business, and con-

sumer value. Having been published in, for example,

the Journal of Advertising Research, the Journal of

Advertising, Psychology & Marketing, the Journal of

Brand Management, he has taken the first baby steps

toward realizing that ambition.

SARA ROSENGREN is a Ph.D. candidate at the Stock-

holm School of Economics, presenting her thesis on

marketing communications in cluttered environments

in the fall of 2008, Her experiments on competition

within advertising, PR, and brand communications

have been published in, for example, the Journal of

Advertising Research, the Journal of Advertising, the

Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising,

and the Journal of Brand Management.

FREDRIK TORN is a Ph.D. candidate at the Stockholm

School of Economics, focusing on incongruent brand

communications. His studies have been published in,

for example, the Journal of Advertising, the Journal of

Current Issues and Research in Advertising, and the

Journal of Consumer Behavior.

REFERENCES

AMBLER, TIM, and E. A N N HOLLIER "The Waste

in Advertising Is the Part That Works." Journal

of Advertising Research 44, 4 (2004): 375-89,

ANG, SWEE HOON, and SHARON Y. M , LOW.

"Exploring the Dimensions of Ad Creativity,"

Psychology & Marketing 17, 10 (2000): 835-54,

BARON, REUBEN M, , and DAVID A. KENNY, "The

Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in So-

cial Psychological Research: Conceptual, Stra-

tegic, and Statistical Considerations," Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology 51, 6 (1986):

1173-82.

BiEHAL, GABRIEL J., and DANIEL A, SHEININ,

"The Influence of Corporate Messages on the

Product Portfolio." Journal of Marketing 71, 2

(2007): 12-25.

BROWN, TOM J., and PETER A, DACIN, "The

Company and the Product: Corporate Associ-

DAHLÉN, MICAEL, and SARA ROSENGREN, "Brands

Affect Slogans Affect Brands? Brand Equity, Com-

petitive Interference, and the Brand-Slogan Link."

Journal of Brand Management 12,3 (2005): 151-64,

EHRENBERG, ANDREW S. C , NEIL BARNARD,

RACHEL KENNEDY, and HELEN BLOOM, "Brand

Advertising as Creative Publicity." Journal of

Advertising Research 42, 4 (2002): 7-18.

EL-MURAD, JAAEAR, and DOUGLAS C . WEST,

"Risk and Creativity in Advertising," Journal of

Marketing Management 19, 4 (2003): 657-73,

and "The Definition and Mea-

surement of Creativity: What Do We Know?"

Journal of Advertising Research 44, 2 (2004):

188-201.

GROSS, IRWIN, "The Creative Aspects of Adver-

tising." Sloan Management Review, 14, 1 (1972):

83-109.

HABERLAND, GABRIELE S., and PETER A, D A -

GIN. "The Development of a Measure to Assess

Viewers' Judgments of the Creativity of an

Advertisement: A Preliminary Study," Ad-

vances in Consumer Research 19 (1992): 817-25,

HALL, BRUCE F. "A New Model for Measuring

Advertising Effectiveness," Journal of Advertis-

ing Research 42, 2 (2002): 23-31.

HEATH, ROBERT, and AGNES NAIRN. "Measur-

ing Affective Advertising: Implications of Low

Attention Processing on Recall," Journal of Ad-

vertising Research 45, 2 (2005): 269-81,

4 0 2 JOÜBÜfiL OF BDÜEBTISinG RESERRCH September 2 0 0 8


HELGESEN, THOROLF. "Advertising Awards and

Advertising Agency Performance Criteria." Jour-

nal of Advertising Research 34, 4 (1994): 43-53.

KENNY, DWAYNE A. "Cross-Lagged Panel Cor-

relation: A Test for Spuriousness." Psychological

Bulletin 82, 6 (1975): 887-903.

KENT, ROBERT J. "The Effects of Media-Source

Cues in Ad Recall Tests." Journal of Current

Issues and Research in Advertising 24, 1 (2002):

1-9.

KIRMANI, AMNA. "The Effect of Perceived Ad-

vertising Costs on Brand Perceptions." Journal

of Consumer Research 17, 2 (1990): 160-71.

. "Advertising Repetition as a Signal of

Quality: If It's Advertised So Much, Something

Must Be Wrong." Journal of Advertising 26, 3

(1997): 77-86.

cies." Journal of Advertising Research 43,1 (2003):

96-110.

and "Do Marketers Get

, and AKSHAY R. RAO. " N O Pain, No Gain:

A Critical Review of the Literature on Signal-

ing Unobservable Product Quality." Journal of

Marketing 64, 2 (2000): 66-79.

, and PETER WRIGHT. "Money Talks: Per-

ceived Advertising Expense and Expected Prod-

uct Quality." Journal of Consumer Research 16, 3

(1989): 344-53.

KOSLOW, SCOTT, SHEILA L. SASSER, and ED-

WARD A. RIORDAN. "What is Creative to Whom

and Why? Perceptions on Advertising Agen-

the Advertising They Need or the Advertising

They Deserve? Agency Views of How Clients

Influence Creativity." Journal of Advertising 35,

3 (2006): 81-101.

KOVER, ARTHUR J., STEPHEN M . GOLDBERG, and

WILLIAM M . JAMES. "Creativity vs. Effective-

ness? An Integrating Classification for Adver-

tising." Journal of Advertising Research 35,6 (1995):

29-40.

, WILLIAM L. JAMES, and BRENDA S. SON-

NER. "To Whom Do Advertising Créatives Write?

An Inferential Answer." Journal of Advertising

Research 37, 1 (1997): 41-53.

Luo, XuEMiNG, and C. B. BHATTAGHARYA. "Cor-

porate Social Responsibility, Customer Satisfac-

tion, and Market Value." Journal of Marketing

70, 4 (2006): 1-18.

MAGHLEIT, KAREN A., CHRIS T. ALLEN, and

THOMAS J. MADDEN. "The Mature Brand and

Brand Interest: An Alternative Consequence of

Ad-Evoked Affect." Journal of Marketing 57, 4

(1993): 72-82.

REID, LEONARD N . , KAREN WHITEHILL KING,

and DENISE E. DELORME. "Top-Level Agency

Créatives Look at Advertising Creativity Then

and Now." Journal of Advertising 27, 2 (1998):

1-16.

STONE, GERALD, DONNA BESSER, and LORAN E.

LEWIS. "Recall, Liking and Creativity in TV

Commercials: A New Approach." Journal of Ad-

vertising Research 40, 3 (2000): 7-18.

TILL, BRIAN D., and DANIEL W. BAAGK. "Recall

and Persuasion. Does Creativity Matter?" Jour-

nal of Advertising 34, 3 (2005): 47-57.

TOM, GAIL, and ANMARIE EVES. "The Use of

Rhetorical Devices in Advertising." Journal of

Advertising Research 39, 4 (1999): 39-43.

ToNGAR, MARK E , and JAMES MUNGH. "Con-

sumer Responses to Tropes in Print Advertis-

ing." Journal of Advertising 30, 1 (2001): 55-65.

, and . "The Influence of Simple

and Complex Tropes on Believability, Impor-

tance and Memory." Journal of Marketing Theory

& Practice 11, 4 (2003): 39-53.

WEILBAGHER, WILLIAM M . " H O W Advertising

Affects Consumers." Journal of Advertising Re-

search 43, 2 (2003): 230-34.

WEST, DOUGLAS C . "360° of Creative Risk."

Journal of Advertising Research 29,1 (1999): 39-50.

WHITE, ALISA, and BRUGE L. SMITH. "Assess-

ing Advertising Creativity Using the Creative

Product Semantic Scale." Journal of Advertising

Research 41, 6 (2001): 27-34.

September 2 0 0 8 JDURDHL OF HDUEIITISIOG RESEflRCH 4 0 3

Documents

Advertising Creativity Matters