NAVEEN DONTHUCOMPARATIVEADVERTISING INTENSITY

NAVEEN DONTHU is assis-tant pfotessor in ttie depart-ment of marketing al GeorgiaState University He holds aPh.D in marketing trom theUniversity of Texas at Austin.Professor Donthu's researchin ihe areas of product posi-tioning, trade area anaiysis,outdoor and comparative ad-vertising, and Hispanic con-sumer research have beenpublished m Marketing Sci-ence. Journal ol ConsumerResearch. Journal ol Advertis-ing. Journal ol AdvertisingResearch. Marketing Letters.Psychology & Marketing, andJournal of the Academy ofMarketirig Science

Ccomparative advertise-ments are being widelyused in print and televi-

sion media since its use was le-gitimized by an FTC ruling in1971. The effectiveness of com-parative advertisements havebeen studied and tested by nu-merous academic and industrystudies. The results of thesestudies have been mixed andconflicting, which has promptedmany researchers to explore thecause behind such diverse re-sults regarding comparative ad-vertising effectiveness.

Comparative advertisementshave been found to be no moreeffective than traditional non-comparative advertising bymany researchers, includingGoodv /̂in and Etgar (1980),Droge and Dormon (1987), andSwinyard (1980). At the sametime, many researchers, includ-ing Demirdjian (1983), Earl andPride (1980), and Tannenbaum(1976), show that comparativeadvertisements are very effectiveand advocate its use over non-comparative advertisements. In arecent article, Rogers and Wil-liams (1989) surveyed 104 papersdealing with comparative adver-tising and found that 17 of the104 papers concluded that com-parative advertising is more ef-fective than noncomparative ad-vertising, 30 of the 104 papersconcluded that comparative ad-vertising is no better than non-comparative advertising, whilethe remaining 57 had neutralresults.

A closer look at the above

studies will indicate that theyhave used very different types ofcomparative advertisements.Some comparative advertise-ments are very explicit, namethe competing brand, and makecomparisons on more than oneattribute (for example, price,quality, horsepovi^er, softness,etc.). Other comparative adver-tisements make only an overallcomparison and use the "leadingbrand" approach without evennaming the "compared to"brand, and the message is verysubtle in nature.

Given that there are such sig-nificant variations between com-parative advertisements, it is notsurprising that the results in thisarea are so mixed (Walker andAnderson, 1991; Lamb, Pride,and Pletcher, 1978). We believethat computing the effectivenessof comparative advertisements,and comparing its effectivenesswith noncomparative advertise-ments, makes sense only afterthe intensity of the comparativeadvertisement has been ac-counted for. Researchers haveshown that comparative adver-tisements increase consumer in-volvement (Muehling, Stolman,and Grossbart, 1990), and as theintensity of the comparative adincreases, the increase in mes-sage involvement should alsoincrease the recall (and ulti-mately the effectiveness) of thecomparative advertisement.

In this paper we will first lookat differences in comparative ad-vertisements and develop a mea-sure of comparative advertising

Journal ot ADVERTISING RESEARCH—NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1992 53

C O M P A R A T I \ ' t A D V t 1< T [ S I N C

intensity (CAI) based on thesedifferences. In the past, attemptshave been made to classify com-parative advertisements on thebasis of their messages (Mueh-ling and Kangun, 1985; Hisrich,1983); however, researchers havenot developed an explicit scaleto measure comparative advertis-ing intensity as proposed in thisarticle.

We will then empirically testthe effectiveness of comparativeadvertisements, when comparedto noncomparative advertise-ments, after they have been clas-sified based on their intensity.We measure consumer recall ofads and consumer attitude to-ward the ad. Finally, we discussthe theoretical and managerialimplications of comparative ad-vertising intensity.

Intensity of ComparativeAdvertisements

After a careful examination ofmany comparative advertise-ments, interviews with manag-ers at advertising agencies, anda survey of the literature, wedetermined that most compara-tive advertisements may be clas-sified on the following fourdimensions:

1. Does not name the "com-pared to" brand or uses the"leading brand" approach(e.g., "Our detergent is betterthan the leading brand.")(XI = 0); explicitly names thecompeting brand (e.g., "Oursoap is better than Dovesoap.") (XI = 1).

2. Makes overall comparisons(e.g., "Our brand is betterthan Tide.") (X2 = 0); makescomparisons on one or moreattributes (e.g., "Toyota givesmore miles per gallon thanHonda but costs $2000 lessthan Honda." (X2 = 1).

3. Two-sided (positive and nega-

tive) comparisons (e.g., "Ourbeer costs a little more buttastes better than Coors.")(X3 - 0); one-sided compari-sons only (e.g., "Our com-puter costs less than IBM andruns faster than Apple com-puters.") (X3 = 1).

4. Less than 50 percent of thetime spent on comparisons(X4 - 0); more than 50 per-cent of the time spent oncomparisons (X4 - 1).

For any given comparative ad-vertisement, its intensity (CAI)may be computed as:

CAI = XI -F X2 + X3 + X4

A noncomparative advertise-ment will have CAI = 0, and atthe other extreme, a very intensecomparative ad will haveCAI = 4. All other comparativeads will have a CAI score any-where between 0 and 3.

Hence, the basic idea pro-posed here is that all compara-tive advertisements may be clas-sified on the intensity scalewhereCAI = 0 implies noncomparative

or very low intensitycomparative ad

CAI = 1 implies low intensitycomparative ad

CAI = 2 implies somewhatintensive comparative ad

CAI = 3 implies an intensivecomparative ad and

CAI = 4 implies very intensivecomparative ad

Research Question

The main purpose of this re-search is to examine the effect ofcomparative advertisements' in-tensity on effectiveness andhence resolve the controversysurrounding the effectiveness ofcomparative advertising. In par-ticular, we will assess the effectof comparative advertisements'intensity on consumer recall andattitude toward the ad.

Research Design andData Coliection

The data for the study wascollected from part-time studentsat a nontraditional, medium-sized state university. All sub-jects worked half- to full-time atprivate and government offices.A careful examination of thesample demographics revealedthat their average age, sex, mari-tal status, and income were com-parable to the average values forthe city, except for their educa-tion level. The education level ofthe sample was slightly skewedto the higher side. Of the 240subjects that participated in thestudy, 8 were not usable as theyprovided incomplete responses.Finally, there were 232 data setsthat were complete and usable.

Subjects met in batches of 30each. At the beginning of thesession, the subjects filled out aquestionnaire containing demo-graphic information. Next, theyviewed a videotape containing a30-minute situation comedy re-corded from a major network TVchannel. Whenever the programstopped for commercial breaks,"test ads" were inserted. These"test ads" were obtained fromvarious network shows. A totalof 12 "test ads" were inserted inthe tape. Six of the ads werecomparative advertisements ofdifferent degrees of intensity.The other six ads were noncom-parative in nature with a CAI of0. The distribution of the CAIfor the 12 ads are shown in Ta-ble 1.

The subjects were instructedto sit back, relax, and enjoy theshow. They were given no infor-mation on what they were goingto see or what they should lookfor.

At the end of the program,subjects were asked to recall theadvertisements they had seenand describe them in as much

54 Journal of ADVERTiSiNG RESEARCH—NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1992

C O M P A R A T I V E A D V E R T I S I N G

Table 1Characteristics of the Advertisements Used in the Study

Type Intensity level (CAI) Number ot ads

Very intense comparative ad

Intense comparative ad

Somewhat intense comparative ad

Lovi/ intensity comparative ad

Noncomparative or very low intensitycomparative ad

detail as possible. If subjects re-called a particular ad, they weregiven a score of 1 for that ad;and if they did not recall a par-ticular ad, they were given ascore of 0. Hence each subjecthad 12 recall scores (for each ofthe 12 ads used in the study).

Next, they were asked a seriesof questions to measure theirattitudes toward the ads. The 10questions asked to measure theirattitude toward an ad are shownin Table 2. This scale was devel-oped by Holmes and Crocker(1987) and has been tested forreliability (the Cronback alphawas 0.88). Respondent attitudetoward a particular ad was mea-sured by summing, and thenscaling, the respondent's scoreon the 10 questions for that ad.The same questions were askedfor all of the 12 ads. Respon-dents viewed each of the 12 adsa second time before answering

the attitude questions.

Results

If the intensity of the compar-ative advertisements was relatedto their effectiveness, then wewould expect the percent of sub-jects recalling any particular adto be directly related to its inten-sity. Also, the average attitudescores for any particular adwould be directly related to theintensity of the ad.

In the case of recall, we foundthat the recall of comparativeads is directly proportional totheir comparative intensity. Fig-ure 1 shows the average recallscores for different intensity lev-els (which could vary from 0 to4). The 5 intensity levels areshown on the X axis and the av-erage recall scores (percent re-calling the ad) are shown on theY axis. From this figure, it is

Tabie 2Scaie Used to Measure Attitude Toward Advertisements*

unappealingunbelievable

unimpressiveunattractive

uninformativenot clear

non eye-catchingextremely unlikely

unconvincingoverall disliking

appealingbelievableimpressiveattractiveinformativecleareye-catchingextremely likelyconvincingoverall liking

" Attitude toward an ad is the sum of scores on above 10 scales divided by 70 (attitude on a 0-1scale).

clear that as the intensity of thecomparative advertisement in-creases its recall increases. Allobserved differences were statis-tically significant at the 0.01level.

ln the case of attitude towardthe ad, the relationship betweenintensity and attitude was not sosimple. It increased with lowerlevels of intensity but droppedat higher levels. Figure 2 showsthe average attitude scores fordifferent intensity levels (whichcould vary from 0 to 4). The 5intensity levels are shown on theX axis and the average attitudescores are shown on the Y axis.From this figure, it is clear thatas the intensity of the compara-tive ad increases, the consumerattitude remains constant, or in-creases slightly (the increase wasnot significant at the 0.01 level),until the intensity level reaches3. However, for the maximumintensity (CAI = 4) comparativeadvertisements, the consumerattitude toward the ad de-creases. The average attitudescore for CAI = 4 was signifi-cantly (0.01 level) lower than forall other intensities.

Discussion

Comparative ads are beingused increasingly in print andtelevision media. However,there is a major controversy re-garding comparative advertisingeffectiveness. The results arevery mixed and vary from "veryeffective" to "not as effective asnoncomparative ads."

It was observed that compara-tive advertisements had a greatamount of variation in terms oftheir intensity. Some of the com-parative ads were very intensein nature while others were verymild and only suggestive. Ascale was developed to measurecomparative advertising inten-sity, and a study was designedto measure the effect of this dif-

Journal of ADVERTISING RESEARCH—NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1992 55

C O M P A R A T I V k A n V H \< T 1 S 1 N' G

Figure 1

Average Recall Scores for Ads

AV

erage

Reca

0.71

0.50

0.42

0 1 2 3

Comparative Advertising Intensity (CAI)

ference in comparative advertis-ing intensity on its effectiveness.In this study two measures ofeffectiveness, recall and attitudetoward the ad, were used.

Comparative ads have beenshown to increase consumer in-volvement with the message,and hence it was hypothesizedthat as the intensity of the com-parative advertisement increases,its recall will increase due to itsability to increase subject in-volvement with the message be-ing communicated. It was alsohypothesized that consumer atti-tude toward a comparative adwill also be a function of the in-tensity of the ad.

The intensity of a comparativeadvertisement was defined as ascore between 0 and 4 basedupon whether (1) the competingbrand name was mentioned, (2)

a comparison was made at theattribute level, (3) whether thecomparison was one or twosided, and (4) the amount of adtime that was spent on the com-parison task.

The results of the studyshowed that comparative adver-tisement recall was directly re-lated to its intensity. As the in-tensity of the ad increased, itsrecall also increased. Consumerstend to recall more intense com-parative ads than less intensecomparative ads.

In the case of consumer atti-tude toward the ad, the averageattitude score remained con-stant, or increased slightly, asthe ad intensity increased up toa certain point and then startedto drop. Consumers seemed tohave a positive attitude (compa-rable to that of noncomparative

ads) for comparative ads up to acertain amount of intensity, buttheir attitude dropped after thecomparative ad became veryintense.

This finding has a major impli-cation for comparative advertis-ing effectiveness research. Thestudy shows that when discuss-ing comparative advertising ef-fectiveness, it does not makesense to treat all comparativeads as equal. The intensity ofthe comparative ad should befactored in. Once the compara-tive ad intensity has been ac-counted for, the results regard-ing comparative advertising ef-fectiveness may not be asconflicting as seen in the past.

In a 1989 study, Rogers andWilliams found that both aca-demic researchers and practitio-ners agreed that comparativeadvertisements achieve bettermessage recall than noncompar-ative advertisements. This find-ing was borne out by our studyalso. Rogers and Williams alsofound that when it comes toconsumer attitudes, academicresearchers and practitioners donot agree on comparative adver-tising effectiveness. Academicresearchers feel that comparativeadvertisements are as good asnoncomparative advertisementswhen it comes to improving con-sumer attitude toward the ad;while practitioners feel that com-parative advertisements are lesseffective than noncomparativeadvertisements in improving

. . . comparativeadvertisements may be aseffective, or less effective,

than noncomparativeadvertising, depending upon

the advertisements'intensity.

56 Journal of ADVERTISING RESEARCH—NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1992

C O M P A R A T I V E A D V E R T I S I N G

consumer attitude toward thead. This conflicting conclusion isalso noticed in our study. Wesee in this study that compara-tive advertisements may be aseffective, or less effective, thannoncomparative advertising, de-pending upon the advertise-ments' intensity. Hence ourstudy has found support for theacademic researchers' conclu-sions and the practitioners'perceptions.

Several other factors, such ashumor or sex appeal, may alsoimpact the comparative advertis-ing effectiveness. In this studywe only investigated the effectof the intensity of comparativeadvertisements. However, theresults show that by accountingfor the comparative ads' inten-sity alone, we are able to un-cover significant differences incomparative advertisement effec-tiveness. This does not necessar-ily mean that other factors arenot relevant. They are just be-yond the scope of this paper andhence have not been accountedfor in this study.

Managerially, the implicationis that consumers tend to recallcomparative ads more than non-comparative advertisements. Infact the recall increases as theintensity of the comparative adincreases. However, consumerattitude toward the comparativead does not increase as its inten-sity increases. Consumers tendto have a negative attitude to-ward comparative ads which arevery intense in nature.

If a decision has been made touse comparative advertisementsand the main goal of the cam-paign is to increase consumerrecall of advertisements, thenthe obvious recommendation isto use very intense comparativeadvertisements. Intense compar-ative ads may be created by ex-plicitly naming the competingbrand, making only positive(one-sided) comparisons at the

Figure 2

Average Attitude Scores for Ads

AVer1

age

Attitud

e

0.66

ii1

11

iii

1I

0.66 _

i1111

11iii

0.72

H1

11111•

111

11

0.72

\

\\ 0.48

r1•11111

0 1 2 3

Comparative Advertising Intensity (CAI)

attribute level, and spendingmost of the ad time on thesecomparisons. On the otherhand, if the campaign goal is tocreate a positive attitude towardthe ad or the product, thenmoderately intensive compara-tive ads mav be more effective.After considering the tradeoffsinvolved, it may be recom-mended that, in order to achieveoptimal recall and optimal con-sumer attitude, comparative adsshould be moderately intense(CAI = 2 or 3).

Here a simple study, usingpart-time students, was de-

The bottom line is "Howcomparative is the

comparative advertisement?"

signed to test the hypothesis.The reliability of the presentstudy's findings should bechecked using other popula-tions. Alternate measures ofcomparative ad effectiveness,other than recall and attitudeused in this study, should alsobe used in the future. The ulti-mate goal of comparative adver-tising is to increase consumerpurchase intention and finallythe sales of the product beingadvertised, not just increase re-call and create a positive attitudetoward the ad.

In conclusion, comparativeadvertisements vary in terms oftheir intensity. To get a properfeel for comparative advertisingeffectiveness, its intensity shouldbe factored. The bottom line is"How comparative is the com-parative advertisement?" •

Journal of ADVERTISING RESEARCH—NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1992 57

C O M P A R A r I V U A D V t R T I S I N G

References

Demirdjian, Z. S. "Sales Effec-tiveness of Comparative Adver-tising: An Experimental FieldInvestigation." Journal of Con-sumer Behavior 10, 4 (1983): 362-64.

Droge, Cornelia, and Rene Y.Dormon. "Associative Position-ing Strategies Through Compar-ative Advertising: Attributedversus Overall Similarity Ap-proaches." Journal of MarketingResearch 25, 2 (1987): 377-88.

Earl, Ronald L., and William M.Pride. "The Effects of Advertise-ment Structure, Message Side-ness, and Performance Test Re-sults on Print Advertising." Jour-nal of Advertising 9, 3 (1980): 36-44.

Goodwin, Etgar, and MichaelEtgar. "An Experimental Investi-gation of Comparative Advertis-ing: Impact of Message Appeal,Information Load, and Utility ofProduct Class." Jourjial of Market-ing Research 17, 2 (1980): 187-202.

Hisrich, Robert D. "ExecutiveAdvertisers' View of Compara-tive Advertising" Sloan Manage-ment Revim-' 25, 1 (1983): 39-50.

Holmes, John H., and KennethE. Crocker. "Predisposition inthe Comparative Effectiveness ofRational, Functional and Dis-crepant Appeals for Both." Jour-nal of the Academy of MarketingScience 15, 1 (1987): 11-18.

Lamb, C. W.; William M. Pride,and B. A. Pletcher. "A Taxa-nomy for Comparative Adver-tisement." Journal of Advertising7, 4 (1977): 43-47.

Muehling, Darrel D.; Jeffery J.Stoltman; and Sanford Gross-bart. "The Impact of Compara-tive Advertising on Levels ofMessage Involvement." Journal ofAdvertising 19, 4 (1990): 41-50.

, and Norman Kangan."The Multidimensionality ofComparative Advertising: Impli-cations for Federal Trade Com-

mission." Journal of Public Policyand Marketing 4, 4 (1985): 112-28.

Rogers, John C , and Terrell G.Williams. "Comparative Adver-tising Effectiveness: Practitio-ners' Perceptions versus Aca-demic Research Findings." Jour-nal of Advertising Research 29, 5(1989): 22-36.

Swinyard, William. "The Interac-tion Between Comparative Ad-vertising and Copy Claim Varia-tion." Journal of fAarketing Re-search 18, 2 (1981): 175-86.

Tennenbaum, Stanley L "Forand Against Comparative Adver-tising." Advertising Age, July 5,1976.

Walker, Beth A., and Helen H.Anderson. "ReconceptualizingComparative Advertising: AFramework and Theory of Ef-fects." Advances in Consumer Re-search, Vol. 18. Provo, UT: Asso-ciation for Consumer Research,1991.

. < • •

58 Journai o( ADVERTISING RESEARCH—NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1992