This article was downloaded by: [Colorado College]On: 07 November 2014, At: 13:49Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Promotion ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjpm20

Synergies of Promotional Products andPrint Advertising in Building BrandEquity for a New BrandMichael S. McCarthy a & Eugene H. Fram aa Richard T. Farmer School of Business , Miami Universityb E. Philip Saunders College of Business , Rochester Institute ofTechnologyPublished online: 13 Oct 2009.

To cite this article: Michael S. McCarthy & Eugene H. Fram (2008) Synergies of Promotional Productsand Print Advertising in Building Brand Equity for a New Brand, Journal of Promotion Management,14:1-2, 3-15, DOI: 10.1080/10496490802501661

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10496490802501661

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Promotion Management, 14:3–15, 2008Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1049-6491 print / 1540-7594 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10496490802501661

Synergies of Promotional Productsand Print Advertising in Building Brand

Equity for a New Brand

MICHAEL S. MCCARTHY AND EUGENE H. FRAM

We examine the effects of traditional advertising and/or promo-tional items in the formation of brand equity for a new brand.In a two-part experiment, subjects first reviewed a print ad andreceived a promotional item that did (or did not) relate to the ad-vertised brand. Nine days later, the subjects provided measures ofbrand equity for the new brand. The findings indicate that (a)combining a promotional product with traditional advertising re-sults in greater levels of brand equity and (b) using a promotionalproduct with or without traditional advertising results in a greaterlikelihood of a future visit to the brand’s website.

KEYWORDS Brand equity, experimental studies, print advertising,promotional products

INTRODUCTION

Promotional products such as brand or message-embossed pens, apparel,and coffee mugs have been distributed to consumers for decades. A recentcheck of a colleague’s desk unearthed the following: a paperweight withthe logo of the world’s largest retailer, a desk calculator from a leading

Michael S. McCarthy (PhD, University of Pittsburgh) is Associate Professor of Marketing,Richard T. Farmer School of Business, Miami University, 200 Upham Hall, 501 East HighStreet, Oxford, OH 45056 USA (E-mail: mccartms@muohio.edu). Eugene H. Fram (EdD, StateUniversity of New York at Buffalo) is Professor Emeritus, E. Philip Saunders College ofBusiness, Rochester Institute of Technology, 108 Lomb Memorial Drive, Rochester, NY 14623USA (E-mail: eugenefram@yahoo.com).

The authors would like to thank Bic Graphic USA, Clearwater, Florida (www.bicgraphic.com) for supplying the promotional products used in this study.

3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:49

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

4 M. S. McCarthy and E. H. Fram

business magazine, a Cross brand pen touting a mutual fund, a BIC brandpen promoting a leading hotel chain, a labor organization coffee mug, anda matchbook from an East Coast restaurant. That’s quite a collection ofpromotional products in one small area.

In fact, the use of items like these in the promotion of branded productsand services is so pervasive that they are often collectively referred to as“Trash and Trinkets.” However, the enduring appeal of promotional productsin consumer brand marketing clearly indicates that they are neither trash nortrinkets (Rotfeld, 1998). According to some recent studies (Duttge, 2006;Freed, 2006; Gruben, 2006), promotional products have evolved to becomean even more popular tool in marketing consumer branded products. TheAdvertising Specialty Institute reported that sales of promotional productsbranded with a company’s logo or marketing message reached a record$19.6 billion in 2007, up from $18.6 billion in 2006 (Advertising SpecialtyInstitute, 2008).

While marketers appear to increasingly invest in promotional products,little empirical research has been published focusing on how consumer brandequity, evidenced by brand awareness, attitudes, and perceptions, is affectedby promotional products. Duttge (2006) reported that a 30% response ratecould be developed from a direct mail campaign when a promotional prod-uct is included. While this finding does not directly implicate the effects ofpromotional products on consumer brand perceptions, it does imply somepositive effect of promotional products on brand purchase behavior thatcan effect future brand perceptions. The few consumer-focused studies havea somewhat limited scope, comparing, for example, promotional productswith promotional opportunities such as coupon distribution (Kendrick, 1998)but do not provide insight into how the use of the item affects brand equity.

The lack of a compelling body of evidence demonstrating the efficacyof promotional products to positively affect brand equity is a bit surprisinggiven senior managements’ continually escalating demand that promotioninvestments be subject to payback analysis to quantify their return. To ad-dress a portion of this research void, we conducted a controlled experimentalstudy designed to investigate the effect of using a promotional item and/or atraditional print advertisement on the initial brand equity of a new consumerservice brand.

STUDY DESIGN AND PROCEDURE

To investigate the effect of a promotional product on a brand’s initial devel-opment of equity, we conducted an exploratory three-condition experimentcarried out in two phases separated by a nine-day time period.

In Phase 1, one of the authors visited three sections of an undergraduateintroductory marketing course and requested that respondents evaluate a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:49

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Synergies of Promotional Products 5

“rough” print advertisement on a number of dimensions. The evaluationof the advertisement was conducted to ensure adequate processing of theprint ad content. In two of the three sections, respondents evaluated anadvertisement, as seen in Figure 1, for SunnySpringBreaks.com: a fictionalInternet-based travel service focused on helping college students arrangespring break trips. In the third section, respondents evaluated a “distracter”advertisement, as seen in Figure 2, promoting Ontario Canada Tourism.Both ads were designed by the authors and employed a consistent designexecution to avoid unintended effects due to differences in ad layout anddesign.

When the respondents completed their evaluation of their assigned ad-vertisement, each was given a high-quality retractable ballpoint pen in appre-ciation of their time and input. In two of the sections, the pen was imprintedwith the logo for SunnySpringBreaks.com. In the other, the pen was blank,sporting no logo or printing (see Figure 3).

By assigning the two different advertisements and the two different penconditions across the three sections of the class, we created the followingthree experimental conditions.

1. Ad Only: Respondents who reviewed SunnySpringBreaks.com advertise-ment and received a blank pen.

2. Pen Only: Respondents who reviewed the Ontario Canada Tourism adver-tisement and received a pen imprinted with the SunnySpringBreaks.comlogo.

3. Ad + Pen: Respondents who reviewed a SunnySpringBreaks.com adver-tisement and received a pen imprinted with the SunnySpringBreaks.comlogo.

Nine days after the first phase, one of the authors returned to the classesto collect a number of brand equity measures for SunnySpringBreaks.com.The nine-day gap between the first and second phases of the data collectionwas intended to increase the generalizability of any findings by better cap-turing the delay between ad exposure and/or the receipt of a promotionalitem and any eventual need to react to a brand in the marketplace.

All respondents, regardless of their initial experimental condition, com-pleted the same questionnaire measuring (a) unaided and aided brand re-call, (b) aided brand recognition, (c) unaided and correct advertising recall,(d) brand attitude, and (e) likelihood of visiting the SunnySpringBreaks.comwebsite in the future. Brand attitude was measured using three 9-point scales(i.e., like/dislike, positive/negative, favorable/unfavorable) with more posi-tive responses anchored on the high end of the scale.

Before proceeding, it is important to discuss our selection of stimuli.We chose a high-quality, well-know brand of ballpoint pen because wewanted respondents to retain and use the pen in their day-to-day classes

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:49

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

6 M. S. McCarthy and E. H. Fram

FIGURE 1 Experimental print ad for sunnyspringbreaks.com.

and activities during the time period between the exposure to the adsand the collection of the brand equity measures. The choice of a fictionalInternet-based travel service was made for two reasons. The use of afictional brand was to clearly assess the contribution of the pen to the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:49

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Synergies of Promotional Products 7

FIGURE 2 Experimental ad for Ontario Tourism.

initial development of a brand’s equity. Had the study used an establishedbrand (e.g., Travelocity or Expedia) uncontrollable factors such as companyhistory, past marketing campaigns, affiliations, market share, or current newsmight have obscured the incremental influence of the promotional product

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:49

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

8 M. S. McCarthy and E. H. Fram

FIGURE 3 Experimental pen stimuli.

and/or print advertisement on the brand’s equity. While this approach maysomewhat limit the generalizabiltiy of our findings, it does allow us todetermine if promotional products with or without print ad support have ameasurable and significant influence on brand equity. The use of a springbreak travel service was to ensure a reasonable level of respondent interestin the service being advertised and/or featured on the pen.

FINDINGS

In examining the effects of our stimuli on brand equity, we chose threegenerally accepted measures of brand equity: brand salience, brand attitude,and brand engagement (Keller, 2008). Table 1 summarizes the findings re-lated to (a) aided brand recall, (b) brand attitude, and (c) correct ad recallfor the SunnySpringBreaks.com brand. Please recall that all these measureswere taken nine days after the evaluation of the SunnySpringBreaks.com adand/or the distribution of the SunnySpringBreaks.com pen.

One measure of a brand’s equity is brand saliency, conceptualized bybrand awareness and ease of brand recall (Keller, 2008). Here we see thatbrand saliency is significantly higher in the Pen + Ad condition (57.6%) thanin either the Pen-Only condition (9.4%, z = 4.81, p = .00002) or in the Ad-Only condition (20.6%, z = 3.35, p = .0004). We also note that there was

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:49

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Synergies of Promotional Products 9

TABLE 1 Brand and Print Ad Recall and Brand Attitude

Experimental Aided recall Attitude toward Correct recall ofcondition N of SSB.com SSB.com brand SSB.com print ad

Pen Only 32 9.4%a 4.74a 0.0%Ad Only 34 20.6%b 4.93 38.2%a

Pen + Ad 33 57.6%ab 5.34a 66.7%a

Values within a column sharing a common letter are significantly different at the p ≤ .05 level.

no statistical difference between the Pen-Only and Ad-Only conditions (z =1.30, p = .0968). These findings imply that the addition of the pen to theadvertising exposure increased the efficacy of the ad exposure in buildingthe brand saliency for SunnySpringBreak.com.

Another dimension of a brand’s equity is brand attitude or the over-all opinion that consumers have for that brand (Keller, 2008). Since weused a totally unfamiliar brand name, any differences in attitudes towardthe SunnySpringBreaks.com brand may be reasonably attributed to the dif-ferences in the experimental conditions. As mentioned earlier, we usedthree measures of brand attitude (like/dislike, positive/negative, and favor-able/unfavorable) were taken using 9-point scales (with higher numbers in-dicating more positive responses). These three measures were combined intoa single measure of brand attitude due to their high reliability (Cronbach’salpha = .955).

With regards to brand attitude, we find that the Pen + Ad conditionis higher than the Pen-Only condition (t(61) = 1.67, p = .051, one-tailedtest), while there is no statistical difference between either (a) the Pen-Onlyand Ad-Only conditions, or (b) the Ad-Only and the Pen + Ad conditions.This overall pattern of findings implies that combining promotional itemswith advertising can achieve higher levels of brand attitude than when thepromotional item is used in isolation.

The results so far indicate that the initial development of a new brand’sequity can be enhanced more so by the combination of promotional items(e.g., a pen) with traditional print advertising than by utilization of eitherpromotional items or print advertising in isolation. However, in addition tothe more direct brand equity measures of brand saliency and brand attitude,we wanted to see if the addition of a promotional item would influence sub-sequent ad recall. While ad recall is not a direct measure of brand equity, itmay influence subsequent brand purchase behavior if the ad can be recalledeasier when a buying decision is being made. Our findings indicated thatad recall was significantly higher in the Pen + Ad condition (66.7%) than inthe Ad-Only condition (38.2%, z = 3.03, p = .0012). This indicates that eventhough the pen added no new information to that provided by the ad itself,the pen did facilitate subsequent recall of the ad at a later time.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:49

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

10 M. S. McCarthy and E. H. Fram

TABLE 2 Likelihood of Visiting SunnySpringBreaks.com Website in the Future

Experiment Likelihood of T-test of differencecondition N visiting ssb.com with Ad Only

Pen Only 32 4.44a t(64) = 2.86; p = .003Ad Only 34 3.03ab n/aPen + Ad 33 4.21b t(65) = 2.41; p = .009

Values within a column sharing a common letter are significantly different at the p ≤ .05level.

One additional measure of brand equity is brand engagement—the like-lihood that a consumer may choose to interact with the brand now or atsome future time. To capture this dimension, the respondents were askedhow likely they were to visit the SunnySpringBreaks.com website in thefuture. This likelihood was measured using a 9-point scale (1 = not at alllikely, 9 = very likely). The results are presented in Table 2.

In Table 2, we find that people receiving the SunnySpringBreaks.compen, with (4.21) or without the print ad (4.44), indicated a higher likelihoodof visiting the SunnySpringBreaks.com website in the future than peoplewho only saw the print ad (3.03). These results are a bit surprising given ourearlier findings of a synergistic effect of using the pen and the ad together.Instead, here, we see that ad exposure, with or without the inclusion of thepen, has no beneficial effect over the pen alone.

The discrepancy between the effects of the pen and/or the ad on the var-ious measures of brand equity implicates the potential for multiple processesin the formation of various dimensions of brand equity. Brand saliency andbrand attitude may be influenced via a cognitive and/or affective persuasionprocess (Petty and Cacioppo, 1983), while future behavior likelihood may bemore influenced by (a) a reciprocity process in which the receiver feels animplicit obligation to “return the favor” of the gift, and/or (b) the extendedbrand exposure provided by the possession and use of the gift. This incon-gruity of response to our stimuli implicates a need for more research on thevarious attitude formation and behavior formation processes that may be atwork when multiple persuasion techniques are used together.

LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

While our findings indicate that using promotional products along with tra-ditional advertising may lead to higher levels of consumer brand equity thanusing either in isolation, we need to temper this potential conclusion withsome caveats to be addressed in future research.

First, our choice of a ballpoint pen as the promotional item may havelimited the efficacy of the promotional item in isolation compared to moreelaborate items (e.g., a baseball cap, calculator, or computer memory stick)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:49

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Synergies of Promotional Products 11

that might have had a greater initial impact and/or been used more frequentlythan a pen. Also, had we used a promotional item with a stronger link tocollege student spring break behavior (e.g., a beach towel, tube of sunscreen,a bottle opener), the incremental effect of the print ad might have beennegligible.

Second, our use of a “rough” print advertisement limits the generaliz-ability of our findings in a number of ways. A more professionally finished adexecution might have made a more substantial initial impact on the respon-dents, which, in turn, might have led to higher levels of brand awarenessand/or brand attitude at the time of the subsequent data collection task. Hadthis been the case, the ad effects might have swamped or mitigated anyeffects of the promotional item. Likewise, had we opted for a broadcast ad,television or radio, that used audio and/or video to further embellish ourad message, our finding might have been different. Finally, the fact that weensured deep processing of the print ad during the initial data collectiontask may have led to a greater ad effect than one might see in the typicallylow-involvement ad processing environment of the real world.

Third, our use of a fictional brand, as opposed to an existing brand,of travel service limits our findings to the establishment of brand equityfor a new brand. Any changes in the brand equity of a brand for whichconsumers already have some degree of brand salience, brand attitude, orbrand engagement is less likely to be influenced, and therefore measured, bythe type of single-exposure procedure used here. Our findings indicate thatusing promotional products with traditional advertising may influence brandequity. The use of a fictional brand to increase our ability to measure theseeffects does not imply that these effects would not occur for establishedbrands.

Finally, our decision to measure brand equity nine days after ad expo-sure and/or receipt of the pen was done to improve generalizability of ourfindings to the “real world.” However, our findings are, no doubt, affectedby this arbitrary time period. Had we measured brand equity sooner or laterthan we did, our findings might have been different. Therefore, while ourfindings bode well for the “staying power” of our stimuli, they do repre-sent a “snapshot” in time. To get a better sense of how advertising and/orpromotional items work over time will require more longitudinal studies.

IMPLICATIONS OF THESE FINDINGS

Known limitations aside, this study demonstrates that marketers may be ableto successfully combine promotional products and other promotional tacticssuch as advertising to develop positive initial brand equity for a new brandentry.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:49

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

12 M. S. McCarthy and E. H. Fram

These findings are particularly timely because the popularity of promo-tional items is unabated. It appears that business to business organizations, inorder to differentiate their brands, have moved even more upscale, and arenow giving their customers items such as USB memory sticks, MP3 players,and energy-saving crank LED flashlights embossed with their names and/orlogo (Duttge, 2006).

For example, at a recent summer Hawaii conference of senior exec-utives, drawings for prizes included portable DVD players, iPods, digitalvideos, Boise noise-canceling headphones, digital video cameras, and hand-held GPS navigation devices (Selingo, 2006). While such extravagant prod-ucts are likely beyond practical consideration by consumer marketers, ourfindings indicate that consumer marketers may be able to use promotionalproducts in conjunction with other promotional tactics, such as traditionalmedia advertising, to differentiate their products and to build brand equity.

A major related strategic question: how might other promotional tacticsbe used with a particular promotional product? Our data indicate that thecombination of a high-quality logoed pen coupled with known exposure to aprint advertisement would work well as a vehicle to introduce a new brand ofservice or product. However, the ever-expanding options in communicationschannels are creating more varied opportunities for marketers to combinepromotional products with other promotional tactics. Some additional venuesthat might be relevant and worthy of consideration follow.

Buzz Marketing: Marketing activities intended to create positive word-of-mouth or “buzz” appear to represent a great opportunity for using pro-motional products when developing a new brand. Buzz marketing organi-zations engage volunteers, paid opinion leaders, or influential persons todiscuss their brand experiences with friends and family, i.e., to create word-of-mouth communications channels. Buzz agents will often distribute sampleproducts to persons with whom they have contact.

To gain additional leverage for a new brand name, consider providingdistributing agents with a promotional product that has a longer life than thesample item, such as a logo-embossed pen, mouse pad, apparel or baseballcap. This approach may offer the advantage of choosing a promotionalproduct that has a particularly strong tie to both the brand and the context inwhich the brand is used. For example, a new sports drink could combine aproduct sample with items such as a stopwatch, pedometer, or pulse monitor.Or, a laundry detergent that eliminates odors on clothing could distributeshirts imprinted with both the brand name and logo on the front and anoffer to “sniff my shirt” on the back. In either example, the promotional itemwill be used and reviewed long after the product sample has been used.

And, in some cases, the promotional item itself may be the brand or thebrand icon itself. An example from the past that endures today: the uniquelyshaped Coca-Cola glass. Many consumers see the glass and immediatelythink Coke, even if the logo is not embossed on it. More recently, the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:49

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Synergies of Promotional Products 13

Pillsbury Dough Boy has been used as a premium item with special packagesof baking mixes or refrigerated dough. Again, the brand icon itself is thepromotional product used to build product demand and to reinforce thebrand’s equity.

Online Social Networks: The emergence of online social networks suchas MySpace and Facebook represent a special opportunity to employ pro-motional products and can be useful in effectively developing consumerawareness for a newly developed product or service brand name, particu-larly if the marketer can employ the network to generate interest in procuringthe item. Since much is known about the behavioral characteristics of anyparticular social network (e.g., new mothers, teens, college students), of-fering a promotional product in tandem with other promotional materialsprovides two opportunities to obtain increased brand awareness. For exam-ple, offering new networking mothers the opportunity to obtain a plush toyor other baby items is likely to create virtual word-of-mouth, or buzz, aboutthe brand. In addition, since the marketer then knows the identity of thepersons receiving the items, the list will also provide a basis for researchingpromotional outcomes.

Infomercials: Marketers selling complex new products frequently pro-vide a longer format message such as an infomercial, demonstration tape, orDVD for consumers who request them. Since the recording probably will beused only once or twice, adding a strategically selected promotional productto the mailing will lengthen the exposure opportunity to the new brand iden-tity. As is the case with social networks, consumers receiving these materialscan be contacted to assess the depth of their awareness of the new productor service brand.

Search Engines and Internet Display Advertisements: The dramatic in-crease of the Internet as source of information to assist consumers in locatingbrand information is offering new opportunities for the use of promotionalproducts. Companies can pay for search engine placement, allowing an adthat promotes the newly developed brand to be well positioned. The firmcan also offer the consumer an opportunity to request a promotional prod-uct. While this approach provides some unique advantages, the ad and offerwill need to have a great deal of credibility and must clearly be a part of awell-respected official company website. Otherwise, consumers might thinkof it as a virus-prone phishing site.

Other Considerations: In addition to what type of promotional tacticsmay be available for use with promotional products, another strategic consid-eration is whether or not to use well-known branded promotional products(e.g., Bic pens, 3M Post-It Notes) or an unbranded product. While it mayseem that the use of a desirable branded product would be preferable, theextra cost of such items and possible crossover brand impacts could be coun-terproductive. For example, how might two different brands of office supplystores benefit from using a branded vs. unbranded sticky-note pads? If a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:49

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

14 M. S. McCarthy and E. H. Fram

well-known national store brand gave away branded or unbranded notepads,its brand equity may not be harmed with either product because its brand eq-uity is already established. (Or, any incremental benefit of using the brandednotepad might be negligible.) However, an unfamiliar office supply storebrand’s credibility might be helped significantly by giving away the brandednotepad. By offering unbranded notepads, consumers might perceive thestore as selling low-quality merchandise. So, it is possible that firms with dif-ferent levels of brand equity might want to do some market analysis beforedeciding on the products to include in their promotional efforts.

Marketers should also consider how the images of two brands fit to-gether in making a branded promotional product choice. For example, con-sider the gift of an umbrella to a new SUV buyer. If the SUV is a high-endluxury model, the effects of the umbrella might be maximized if the umbrellais a designer or luxury brand. However, if the SUV is more of a value model,offering the high-end designer umbrella might not be any more effectivethan offering a well-known value brand.

While promotional products alone may be somewhat effective in intro-ducing a new consumer or service brand, the benefits are likely to increasesubstantially when the item is combined with another promotional tactic,such as print advertising. For example, in this study, 9.4% in the Pen-Onlygroup had aided recall of the SunnySpringBreaks.com brand compared to57.6% in the Pen + Ad group.

To sum up, this study demonstrates that substantial synergies may beachieved by using promotional products along with one or more other pro-motion tactics. Consequently, using promotional products need to be con-sidered as a tactical tool when a new brand’s promotional plan is beingdeveloped.

REFERENCES

Advertising Specialty Institute. (2008). Advertising specialties sales reached $19.6billion in 2007. Retrieved June 16, 2008, from the Advertising SpecialtyInstitute website, http://www.asicentral.com/asp/open/aboutASI/pressRoom/press118.asp

Duttge, W. (2006, May 8). Give it away now. Advertising Age, 4, 87.Freed, M. (2006, May 8). Trinkets to treasure. Marketing, p. 22.Gruben, K. H. (2006). 2005 End-buyer study: A barometer of current conditions in

the promotional products industry. Irving, TX: Promotional Products AssociationInternational.

Keller, K. (2008). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managingbrand equity, 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kendrick, A. (1998). Promotional products vs. price promotion in fostering cus-tomer loyalty: A report of two controlled field experiments. Journal of ServicesMarketing, 12(4), 312–326.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:49

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Synergies of Promotional Products 15

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertis-ing effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 10(2), 135–146.

Rotfeld, H. (1998, January 19). Remember strategy when buying specialty advertisingproducts. Marketing News, p. 16.

Selingo, J. (2006, July 13). Vendors vie for the attention of colleges’ purchasingofficers. Chronicle of Higher Education, Internet edition.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Col

orad

o C

olle

ge]

at 1

3:49

07

Nov

embe

r 20

14