Journal of Advertising

ISSN: 0091-3367 (Print) 1557-7805 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujoa20

If Advertising Won't Die, What Will It Be? Toward a

Working Definition of Advertising

Micael Dahlen & Sara Rosengren

To cite this article: Micael Dahlen & Sara Rosengren (2016) If Advertising Won't Die, What Will
It Be? Toward a Working Definition of Advertising, Journal of Advertising, 45:3, 334-345, DOI:
10.1080/00913367.2016.1172387

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2016.1172387

Published online: 11 Jul 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3882

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 27 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujoa20
Journal of Advertising, 45(3), 334–345
Copyright Ó 2016, American Academy of Advertising
ISSN: 0091-3367 print / 1557-7805 online
DOI: 10.1080/00913367.2016.1172387
If Advertising Won’t Die, What Will It Be? Toward a Working
Definition of Advertising
Micael Dahlen and Sara Rosengren
Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm, Sweden
Answering recent calls for a new definition of advertising, we
identify three dynamics—(new) media and formats, (new)
“consumer” behaviors, and extended effects of advertising—that
drive the evolution of advertising. Based on these, and a survey of
advertising academics and professionals, we formulate an
updated working definition of advertising as “brand-initiated
communication intent on impacting people.” We also test and
validate this definition and the three dynamics in a content
analysis of recently published advertising research (2010 to 2015).
In doing so, we hope to contribute to a more diverse and
contemporary development of advertising research.
More than 20 years have passed since Rust and Oliver
(1994) predicted the “Death of Advertising” in the Journal of
Advertising. The authors anticipated a rapidly approaching
doom of the advertising industry and emphasized the need for
advertising academia to reinvent itself around a new name
other than “advertising.” Obviously, both the practice and the
research of advertising are still alive. Consider, for example,
the 531 billion advertising dollars estimated by Zenith Opti-
media to be invested globally in 2015, a record number of
entries at the 2015 Cannes Lions International Festival of Cre-
ativity, and the increase in high-quality articles published in
the Journal of Advertising.
Still, most would probably agree that today’s advertis-
ing is quite different from that of 20 years ago. Media
spending patterns and advertising formats have changed
dramatically in the past two decades, as have the func-
tions and behaviors related to advertising. In spite of
these changes, the definition of advertising has not been
discussed to any significant extent during this period (see
Kerr and Schultz 2010; Nan and Faber 2004). In 2002,
Address correspondence to Micael Dahlen, Stockholm School of
Economics, P.O. Box 6501, SE-113 83 Stockholm, Sweden. E-mail:
micael.dahlen@hhs.se
Micael Dahlen (PhD, Stockholm School of Economics) is a
professor of marketing, Stockholm School of Economics.
Sara Rosengren (PhD, Stockholm School of Economics) is an
associate professor of marketing, Stockholm School of Economics.
334
Richards and Curran surveyed leading academics and pro-
fessionals to come up with an updated definition of adver-
tising as “a paid, mediated form of communication from
an identifiable source, designed to persuade the receiver
to take some action, now or in the future” (p. 74). Since
then, the definition has not been subject to any test or
debate, and no new definitions have been suggested. Still
to this day, arguments are being put forward that advertis-
ing is (again) dying (Goodley 2015; Lee 2014).
This article seeks to answer a question: “If advertising
won’t die, what will it be?” We address recent calls for a
revised definition of advertising (Carlson 2015) and for
research to expand its view of advertising, as well as the
variables considered, the theories used, and the methods
employed (Faber 2015; Kerr and Schultz 2010). More spe-
cifically, we identify three dynamics that we believe need
to inform the understanding of what advertising will be in
the future, namely, the constant addition of (new) media
and formats, the evolution of (new) “consumer” behaviors
related to advertising, and a growing acknowledgment of
extended effects of advertising. Based on these, and a sur-
vey of advertising academics and professionals, we pro-
pose an updated working definition of advertising as
“brand-initiated communication intent on impacting peo-
ple.” We also conduct a content analysis of advertising
research over the past five years to test its fit with our
identified dynamics and the updated definition.
THE NEED FOR A NEW DEFINITION OF ADVERTISING
The last time an effort to explore the future of adver-
tising research was published in the Journal of Advertis-
ing was almost 25 years ago, with Stewart’s (1992) aptly
titled article “Speculations on the Future of Advertising.”
Similar to Rust and Oliver (1994), that article discussed
whether advertising was a discipline in crisis and sug-
gested future research routes related mainly to the gaug-
ing of advertising effectiveness. The starting point of the
present article is that advertising is undergoing continued
 TOWARD A WORKING DEFINITION OF ADVERTISING
evolution and that the definition of advertising needs to
evolve correspondingly.
Learning from the Past
While the roots of advertising could date back thousands
of years, the first real definition is considered by many to be
Daniel Starch’s (1923) “selling in print” (Richards and Curran
2002; Nan and Faber 2004). At that time, print in various
forms were the predominant, if not only, medium available to
advertisers, so the definition seems rather plausible. It would
be another three decades before the radio medium progressed
sufficiently far to be viable, and yet another decade for the TV
medium to gain enough reach.
With the evolution of the two new media, the definition
of advertising evolved as well. More specifically, “print”
was replaced with “mass media” (Nan and Faber 2004).
This definition would recur in various forms. Richards and
Curran (2002) summarize this development in the prototyp-
ical phrase: “paid nonpersonal communication from an
identified sponsor, using mass media to persuade or influ-
ence an audience”—a definition that was common until the
beginning of the 2000s (p. 64).
In light of this definition, it would not seem very surprising
that Rust and Oliver (1994) anticipated the death of advertis-
ing with the rise of new media—including “one of the most
exciting new services. . . Video Dial Tone” (p. 73)—that did
not fit under the umbrella of “mass media.” Stewart (1992)
similarly argued the crisis of advertising as a discipline, with
the decreasing effectiveness of TV commercials and budget
shifts toward “unmeasured media.”
However, as we know by now, advertisers embraced the
new media, and the advertising industry evolved rather than
died. And once again the definition(s) of advertising changed.
Surveying various advertising experts, Richards and Curran
(2002) derived the majority opinion definition: “paid, medi-
ated form of communication from an identifiable source,
designed to persuade the receiver to take some action, now or
in the future.”
A few observations can be made about the dynamics that
drive this progress. One, advertising evolves with technology
and new media (e.g., Kerr and Schultz 2010). It moves forward
and grows in scope. In fact, advertising may be the most frag-
mented discipline in marketing today, with a multitude of
media and formats (e.g., Eisend 2015). Two, as technology
and media evolve, so do consumer behaviors (e.g., Speck and
Elliot 1997; Rosengren and Dahlen 2015). For example, in
Richards and Curran’s (2002) definition, the more active term
receiver is used instead of the more passive term audience.
Three, changing consumer behaviors yield new functions and
effects. The definition of advertising has thus far evolved from
selling to persuading (which, in turn, can be done and gauged
in many different ways, e.g., Ehrenberg et al. 2002; Faber
2015; Heath, Brandt, and Nairn 2006).
335
Looking into the Future
In light of these changes, it becomes apparent that any defi-
nition of advertising needs to be revisited continuously as
advertising evolves (e.g., Carlson 2015; Kerr and Schultz
2010; Nan and Faber 2004; Richards and Curran 2002). It is
also clear that these three observations will be important when
exploring the trajectories for the future of advertising. In the
following sections we extrapolate these three observations into
the future by discussing them in terms of three dynamics—
(new) media and formats, (new) “consumer” behaviors, and
extended effects of advertising—that we believe must inform
a future definition of advertising.
THE MEDIA AND FORMATS DYNAMIC
Numerous authors have concluded that the development
and transformation of technology and media drive the evolu-
tion of advertising (e.g., Eisend 2015; Faber 2015; Richards
and Curran 2002; Rust and Oliver 1994), and that advertising
research needs to stay at the forefront of this progress (e.g.,
Kerr and Schultz 2010; Nan and Faber 2004). Still, the current
definition of advertising as “a paid, mediated form of commu-
nication from an identifiable source” does not seem to favor
such a development.
In fact, whereas the advertising profession has been quick to
adapt to new media and formats, advertising research has lagged
behind. Previous content analyses suggest that the working defi-
nition of advertising still closely resembles Starch’s (1923)
“selling in print.” In fact, the most recent study, ranging from
1980 to 2010, found that print is still the most studied medium,
accounting for 21.4% of advertising research (Kim et al. 2014),
mirroring Muncy’s (1991) findings from more than 20 years
previous. In both these studies, television ranked as the second
most studied medium, fitting what Richards and Curran (2002)
suggested was the prototypical definition of advertising until the
turn of the millennium, “communication in mass media.”
Indeed, when Cheong, de Gregorio, and Kim (2014) studied
advertising spending efficiency from 1985 to 2012, they
included five mass media outlets (magazines, newspapers, TV,
radio, and outdoor) and the Internet.
However, the Internet—which is forecast to account for
33% of global advertising spending by 2017 (Statista
2015a)—is neither a uniform nor static medium. It comprises
formats ranging from banner ads to websites, video, search,
affiliates, and social media (which, in turn, cover a wide range,
from, Facebook and Twitter to Pinterest, Reddit and Snap-
chat—and additional, new platforms and formats will likely
keep evolving). If the term is expanded to digital advertising,
it also covers video game placements (forecast to reach more
than US$3 billion in spending by 2016; Statista 2015b), adver-
games, and apps (which have been projected to reach
US$39 billion in spending by 2018; Juniper Research 2013).
Furthermore, we are also witnessing exploding growth in
so-called hybrid advertising formats both online and offline
336 M. DAHLEN AND S. ROSENGREN
(forecast to reach US$108 billion in spending by 2019; PQ
Media 2015), such as product placements, programming,
native advertising, and ambient (creative) media, which would
not be accounted for in the aforementioned categories.
In light of the growth of digital and hybrid advertising, and
the accelerated development and fragmentation into new for-
mats, the media and formats dynamic seems particularly
important in guiding a future definition of advertising. To
allow for this, we believe that in contrast to Richards and
Curran’s (2002) definition, a working definition of advertising
should not necessarily include the words paid, which would
already potentially rule out websites, apps, and advergames,
and identifiable source, which would already potentially rule
out, for example, brand placements and search advertising.
We also find the word mediated may be confusing, for
example, in relation to a brand’s (corporate) website or social
media. The word mediated could suggest that someone else
was communicating on the brand’s behalf or that the channel
of communication was not the brand’s own. This could indeed
be the case, but it does not necessarily have to be. The risk of
confusion would be even greater if communication with other
target groups, such as, for example, employees or sharehold-
ers, was included in the working definition of advertising
(which we argue in the next section).
Therefore, we suggest that “paid, mediated communication
from an identifiable source” be updated to allow for advertis-
ing that is not necessarily paid or obviously initiated by a par-
ticular source and to allow for advertising in all kinds of
media and formats.
THE “CONSUMER” BEHAVIOR DYNAMIC
The “consumer” behavior dynamic is related directly to the
media and formats dynamic. With new media and formats
come new behaviors. Richards and Curran’s (2002) replace-
ment of audience with receiver in their definition of advertis-
ing is an illustration of this change. Starting with the remote
control and the video recorder, consumers became able to
choose whether they wanted to receive advertising, rather than
be just a passive audience.
However, with the evolution of digital media, consumers
now control not only whether to receive but also whether to
actively seek out and partake in advertising. Advertisers are
increasingly relying on consumers to seek out advertising
content that would not fit the typical formats for commercials
on, for example, YouTube (Rosengren and Dahlen 2015;
Rosengren 2016). They are also targeting behaviors such as
interactivity and engagement with the advertising in social
media (e.g., Colliander, Dahlen and Modig 2015), advergames
(e.g., Terlutter and Capella 2013), and even inviting consum-
ers to cocreate and partake in various aspects of the production
of the advertising (e.g., Lawrence, Fournier, and Brunel 2013).
The increasing levels of participation, and even cocreation,
are one explanation of why we choose to put quotation marks
around the word consumer in “consumer” behavior dynamic.
Another reason is that as control over advertising becomes
increasingly dispersed, advertising will need to move away
from its restrictive focus on customers to a more integrated
stakeholder perspective (e.g., Hillebrand, Driessen, and Koll
2015). This would include, for example, consumers being
more than mere consumers but rather cocreators of value
(Vargo and Lusch 2004, 2008), financial stakeholders such as
investors (e.g., Bobinski and Ramirez 2004; Karrah 2004),
shareholders (e.g., Pruitt, Cornwell, and Clark 2004), and
employees (e.g., Rosengren and Bondesson 2014).
As “consumer” behavior is continuously changing, we
believe that this dynamic will be particularly important in updat-
ing the definition. To allow for this, we suggest that, in contrast
to Richards and Curran’s (2002) definition, a working definition
of advertising should not necessarily include the word receiver,
which would potentially rule out (the partaking aspects of)
advergames, websites, social media, and cocreated advertising.
Therefore, we suggest that receiver be updated to not
unnecessarily narrow the potential behaviors (both receiving
and partaking in the form, of interacting, seeking out, sharing,
and cocreating) or stakeholderships of the target groups (con-
sumers of a product in terms of both B2C and B2B as well as
internal, financial, and others, such as public policy makers).
THE EXTENDED EFFECTS DYNAMIC
Previous content analyses of advertising research suggest it
has fit rather well with Richards and Curran’s (2002) definition
of advertising as “designed to persuade.” Persuasion theory (Pitt
et al. 2005), such as the elaboration likelihood model (ELM),
was found to be the most frequent driver in all reviewed meta-
studies to date (Kim et al. 2014; Muncy 1991; Pasadeos 1985;
Pasadeos, Phelps, and Kim 1998; Pasadeos, Phelps, and Edison
2008; Pitt et al. 2005). Consequently, advertising research has
predominantly focused individual consumer effects. For exam-
ple, Kim et al. (2014) found that two-thirds of the investigated
advertising effects from 1980 to 2010 were cognitive, affective,
and behavioral consumer responses, such as, brand attitudes, ad
liking, and purchase intentions.
However, Kim et al. (2014) also found that 10% of the
reviewed research investigated economic effects and one per-
cent studied social effects. Both Yale and Gilly (1988) and
Muncy (1991) similarly form research categories for economic
and social effects. Economic effects would include, for exam-
ple, advertising spending efficiency (e.g., Cheong, de Gregorio,
and Kim 2014), economic growth (e.g., Kopf, Torres, and Eno-
moto 2011), and shareholder wealth (e.g., Reilly and McGann
1977), which would indeed build on the notion that advertising
persuades consumers and thereby produces such effects.
Social effects research would include, for example, general
trust in advertising (e.g., Soh, Reid, and King 2009), green
(e.g., Tucker et al. 2012) or healthy consumption (e.g., Yoon
2015), or charitable behaviors (Chang 2014). However, it
 TOWARD A WORKING DEFINITION OF ADVERTISING
would also include advertising impact on body ideals (Bissell
and Rask 2010), social comparison (Gulas and McKeage
2000), creativity (Rosengren, Dahlen, and Modig 2013), and
benevolent behaviors (e.g., Defever, Pandelaere, and Roe
2011), which need not be related to the sender or the persua-
sive purpose of the advertisement.
We believe that the latter extended effects will be particu-
larly interesting to future advertising. Media and formats
evolve at an increasingly rapid pace and will probably be sub-
ject to greater change in the 10 years following Kim et al.’s
(2014) latest content analysis than in the 30 years (1980 to
2010) it included, with corresponding changes in “consumer”
behavior. We expect that ELM-related effects will be less
important in future advertising, and effects that account for
more interactive “consumer” behaviors will become more
important. First, the increasingly social and engaging nature of
advertising, in its many new formats, is more likely to produce
such effects when people relate with one another and commu-
nicate themselves through the advertising. Second, new adver-
tising formats, especially the more pervasive ones of recent
years, go through phases of negotiation where people demand
that they add value beyond the purpose of the advertiser (Dah-
len and Edenius 2007). Third, there is indeed a trend in the
industry toward taking responsibility for negative and promot-
ing positive social effects of advertising. One such example
would be the introduction of the Glass Lion, which promotes
gender equality in the Cannes Lion advertising awards in
2015. We believe that advertising continuously must extend
the range of effects to stay relevant. Indeed, we believe it will
be necessary for advertisers to take greater interest in explor-
ing and gauging (and thereby ultimately avoiding) the
“unintended” negative effects of advertising on, for example,
stereotypes, and to pursue positive extended effects on con-
sumers’ well-being (e.g., body satisfaction or creativity) for
advertising to survive in the long run (compare, for example,
the ban of outdoor advertising in Sao Paulo, Brazil).
To account for the extended effect dynamic, we believe that
a working definition of advertising would need to replace the
words persuade and take some action to allow for advertising
effects which are both related and unrelated to the brand and
which consequently need not necessarily include actions (for
example, body satisfaction). It would also update the definition
for technological advances in “big data,” which may not target
consumers’ mental states at all (and instead target behaviors
directly), and be able to cover a future where advertising mes-
sages are crafted by, and reacted to, based on algorithms (e.g.,
Sorofman 2015). Last but not least, it updates the definition
theoretically by acknowledging more recent, alternative mod-
els other than persuasion regarding how advertising works,
such as resonance (Keller, 2012), publicity (Ehrenberg et al.
2002), low-attention or implicit learning (Heath, Brandt, and
Nairn 2006), fluency (Lee and Labroo 2004), and the cocreat-
ing roles of “consumers” (Vargo and Lusch 2004).
337
TOWARD A WORKING DEFINITION OF ADVERTISING
In discussing the three dynamics that we suggest drive the
evolution of advertising, we have highlighted key terms that
would need to be updated to form a new working definition.
First, the phrase “paid, mediated communication from an
identifiable source” is too restrictive in light of the new media
and formats dynamic. Brands are increasingly advertising
through their own channels, ranging from social media to web-
sites and apps, which would not be a mediated communication
and would not really be paid communication. Furthermore, the
brand may not necessarily be identified as the source in new
formats; two current examples would be affiliate and hybrid
advertising. We believe that the term mediated would probably
best be dropped and that paid could potentially be replaced by
a term like (brand)-initiated or incentivized. The word brand
would be used to signify any party that initiates the advertis-
ing, be it an actual brand or an organization, person, or cause.
We believe this word would be a better fit for the definition
than sender, which brings us to the next point.
Second, the “consumer” behavior dynamic suggests that the
term receiver needs to be updated in a new working definition
of advertising. Consumers need not be (passive) receivers, but
can also be participants, seekers, and even cocreators of the
communication (or the value of the product). The new term
needs to allow not only for the more interactive role of con-
sumers in the advertising but also for a wider span of stake-
holders including employees, shareholders, or (B2B and
nonprofit) organizations. We believe that receiver could be
replaced by a term like people (as all stakeholders are, individ-
ually or in organizations, in the end, people) or participants.
Third, the extended effects dynamic makes the phrase
“persuade. . . to take some action, now or in the future” seem
dated. Recent research has proposed several alternative models
as to how advertising works (and both will and should con-
tinue to do so in the future). At the same time, advertisers are
becoming increasingly mindful of, and able to target, effects
that extend beyond solely persuading someone to take action.
Therefore, we believe that both persuade and take some action
need to be replaced. We believe that a term like impact or
effect better accounts for the extended effects of advertising.
In conclusion, we argue that a new working definition
should comprise three updated parts: one that signifies the
type of communication (where we suggest replacing paid and
mediated), one that indicates the involved parties (where we
suggest replacing receiver), and one that denotes the effects
(where we suggest replacing persuade. . . to take some action).
Piecing the parts together, a new working definition
could include the terms (1) brand-related/brand-initiated/
incentivized (instead of paid, mediated, and identifiable
source) communication (targeted at), (2) people/participants
(instead of receiver) (designed to), and (3) impact/effect
(instead of persuade. . . to take some action). We have
parenthesized the terms “targeted at” and “designed to”
338 M. DAHLEN AND S. ROSENGREN
because they suggest a traditional sender–receiver process
where the brand pushes the advertising forward and is the
sole designer of the message. However, simply leaving
these words out would make it difficult to distinguish adver-
tising from other forms of communication (which is a pri-
mary function of a working definition; Nan and Faber
2004). Therefore, we propose to replace them with a term
that signifies the brand’s (regardless whether it is the actual
designer or not) intent to impact/effect.
Because the updated working definition should offer com-
mon language and facilitate agreement between both academia
and industry (Richards and Curran 2002), we conducted a sur-
vey of advertising professionals and scholars to test (1) our
notions of the dynamics driving the evolution of contemporary
advertising and (2) alternative terms for and combinations of
the three-part definition.
STUDY 1: ADVERTISING EXPERTS
The purpose of Study 1 is to test whether our proposed rea-
soning would enable a common language for education,
research, and practice (Richards and Curran 2002) as deter-
mined by experts in the field. To this end, we surveyed a snow-
ball sample of advertising experts taken from both academia
(n D 37) and industry (n D 20). The use of expert judges in
developing a definition of advertising is similar to that used by
Richards and Curran (2002). Our approach is, however, differ-
ent because the experts are surveyed based on observations of
dynamics driving contemporary and future advertising, rather
than as creators of a definition. This approach was selected to
avoid the cognitive biases associated with a traditional Delphi
approach (for a review of these biases, see Winkler and Moser
2016).
Participants were contacted via e-mail and invited to partic-
ipate in a study on the future of advertising. First, researchers
from North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia were invited
to answer the questionnaire. In total, 17 full professors, eight
associate professors, and 12 assistant professors participated.
Second, advertising professionals from North America, South
America, Europe, Asia, and Australia were invited to answer.
To ensure that these professionals were indeed experts, only
participants who had been received awards in the Cannes
Lions were included. In total, 20 advertising professionals
(creative, n D 5; strategy, n D 4; account, n D 6; agency man-
agement, n D 6) participated in the study.
The survey comprised three parts: Part 1 focused on our
proposed dynamics. More specifically, participants were asked
to rate the relevance of the “consumer” behavior and extended
effects dynamics for future advertising (all answers on a scale
from 1 D Not at all interesting to 10 D Very interesting).
Given the vast support for the media and format dynamics in
existing literature (Eisend 2015; Faber 2015; Richards and
Curran 2002; Rust and Oliver 1994), we did not include this
dynamic in the study. For a full list of questions and items,
please see Table 1.
In Part 2, participants were exposed to different iterations of
the Richards and Curran (2002) definition, where key terms
were stepwise changed following the aforementioned discus-
sion. For each iteration, participants were asked how proper
that specific definition was for future advertising (1 D Not at
all proper, 10 D Definitely proper). The order of definitions
was randomized to avoid order effects.
Part 3 of the questionnaire consisted of an open question in
which participants were asked the following: “After reading
these definitions, what are your thoughts on how advertising
should be defined in the future? Are there certain aspects or
key terms that are more/less important to include?”
Results
The “consumer” behavior dynamic was assessed in terms of
both advertising-related behaviors and stakeholders. Starting
with behaviors, avoiding (M D 8.20) and partaking in advertis-
ing (M D 7.72) were both rated more important for the future
than receiving advertising (M D 6.11, both p < .01). All three
behaviors were rated significantly above the scale midpoint,
although for receiving advertising the difference was only
marginally significant (p D .07). While consumers (M D 8.86)
were rated as significantly more interesting stakeholders than
both professionals (M D 8.25, p < .05) and extended audien-
ces, such as employees and financial stakeholders (M D 7.24,
p < .01), all three rated significantly above the midpoint of the
scale (p < .01), indicating their importance for advertising in
the future. Turning to the extended effects dynamic, both tradi-
tional (M D 7.26) and extended (M D 7.42) effects were rated
above the scale midpoint (p < .01) and considered equally
important. Overall, these findings support the relevance of
considering changing not only media and advertising formats
but also “consumer” behaviors and extended effects when
developing a new definition of advertising.
Iterating the definitions for future advertising, the estab-
lished Richards and Curran (2002) definition rated near the
midpoint of the scale (M D 5.56, not significantly different
from 5.5). Professionals rated it below the scale midpoint (M
D 4.25, significantly below 5.5, p < .05, versus academics: M
D 6.31, p < .01). The iteration that received the highest rating
was “brand-initiated communication intent on impacting peo-
ple” (M D 5.95). Professionals rated this definition marginally
above the scale midpoint (M D 6.40, significantly above 5.5, p
D .06) but not significantly better than academics (M D 5.69,
n.s.). To better understand why this was the case, we analyzed
the open-ended responses. They primarily focused on the
terms paid, initiated, and brand.
While two academics argued for paid (“Paid is important”;
“‘Paid’ is fine, not sure about the rest though”), none of the
professionals did. In fact, most of the responses argued against
paid. Examples follow:
 TOWARD A WORKING DEFINITION OF ADVERTISING 339

TABLE 1
Overview Questions and Results, Study 1
Dynamic/Dimension Item n M SD Cronbach’s a

THE “CONSUMER” BEHAVIOR DYNAMIC

Receiving advertising n/a n/a .220*
Incidental exposure to advertising 55 6.11 2.42
Avoiding advertising (e.g., ad blocking, 56 8.20 1.84
zapping)
Partaking in advertising 56 7.72 1.29 .695
WOM about advertising (e.g., talking, 56 8.04 1.71
sharing online)
Seeking out advertising (e.g., looking up 56 7.84 1.62
online/YouTube)
Participating in advertising 56 7.63 1.85
(e.g., engagement, activity)
Co-creating advertising (e.g., voting, 56 7.39 1.97
designing, suggesting)
Customer audience n/a n/a .202*
Consumers 56 8.86 1.54
Professionals (e.g., doctors, business 55 8.25 1.61
decision makers)
Extended audience 56 7.24 1.92 .845
Other stakeholders (e.g., public policy 56 7.37 1.92
makers, educators)
Internal audience (e.g., employees/ 56 7.52 2.18
co-workers)
Financial stakeholders 56 6.82 2.42
THE EXTENDED EFFECTS DYNAMIC
Traditional effects 56 7.26 1.64 .715
Brand/company related economic effects 56 7.79 2.01
(e.g., ROI, stock value)
Brand reactions (e.g., brand attitude, brand 56 7.64 1.99
purchase intention)
Ad reactions (e.g., ad memory, ad attitude) 56 6.36 2.19
Extended effects 56 7.42 1.61 .778
Social effects, perceptions of self (e.g., body 56 7.57 2.03
satisfaction, self-esteem, creativity)
Social effects, perceptions of others 56 7.45 1.94
(e.g., stereotypes, ideals)
Value of advertising to consumers 56 7.23 1.84
(e.g., entertainment, information)
ASSESSMENT OF DEFINITIONS
Richards and Curran (2002) “A paid, mediated form of communication 55 5.56 2.73
from an identifiable source, designed to
persuade the receiver to take some action,
now or in the future.”
Most proper definition “Brand-initiated communication intent on 56 5.95 2.67
impacting people.”
Notes. Numbers in italics refers to an index created by averaging the items in that dimension.
*
Pearson correlation, given only two items.
340 M. DAHLEN AND S. ROSENGREN
Traditionally, advertising is a paid form of communication due to the
conventional mass media platforms. However, advertising (branded
messages) can be delivered via owned and earned media so the paid
component is becoming less and less important. (Academic)
I think we need to get rid of the “paid” aspect as it makes the field
far too narrow. (Academic)
It is paid or non paid communication that is designed to influence.
(Professional)
Most responses also favored the term initiated:
Brand initiated seems more important than paid. (Academic)
Brand-initiated communications—whether paid, owned, or earned,
or in a mix thereof. (Professional)
But there were also arguments that initiated may unneces-
sarily narrow the definition:
If we think about the (new) active role of consumers in various
forms of advertising, there is often no payment involved, and initia-
tors differ. The three most important constructs might be “brand,”
“people,” and “influence.” (Academic)
Advertising must combine brand-initiated messages, as well as
messages that [don’t] seem to be advertising-type. (Professional)
When it comes to brand, several academic participants
raised concerns that “brand-related was too narrow” and that
the definition should “drop brand part. Adv[vertising] is much
more.” The concern was primarily that using the term brand in
a working definition would mean excluding public service
announcements as well as nonprofit and B2B communications.
Discussion
Overall, the results provided support for our proposed
“consumer” behavior and extended effects dynamics and the
need for a new definition of advertising. What’s more, our
experts seem to agree that the established definition of adver-
tising is no longer the most proper for the discipline. Taken
together, the results suggest that a working definition of adver-
tising needs to be broad enough to capture not only new adver-
tising media and formats but also other types of behaviors and
effects beyond those implied by the traditional definition of
advertising as targeting an audience that is persuaded to react
in a certain manner today or in the future. A future definition
needs to take a more inclusive stance on both who (“people,”
typically consumers, but also other types of stakeholders and
active participants or cocreators) and how advertising might
impact (“impact,” not necessarily by means of persuasion and
in terms of ad and brand effects).
Thus, based on our expert survey, we propose that “brand-
initiated communication intent on impacting people” would be
a working definition that is most likely to enable a common
language for education, research, and practice (Richards and
Curran 2002). In this definition, brand is used instead of
sender to avoid connotations related to a traditional sender–
receiver form of communication. Still, based on the feedback
from our experts, we emphasize that brands could be much
more than just consumer brands, such as an organization, per-
son, or cause.
We also acknowledge that the proposed definition is very
broad and will, in fact, potentially cover all five principal
marketing communications tools (e.g., advertising, sales pro-
motion, public relations, direct marketing, and personal sell-
ing) typically listed in relevant textbooks. However, given the
fast-paced changes in advertising that we have seen, and the
blurring boundaries between communication tools that we are
currently experiencing (e.g., Lee 2014), we and many of the
advertising experts surveyed believe that an updated working
definition must allow for these borders to blur to stay relevant.
Again, the purpose of crafting a new working definition is to
enable a common language for education, research, and prac-
tice (Richards and Curran 2002) while also broadening the
scope and facilitating the development of the discipline (Kerr
and Schultz 2010).
STUDY 2: RECENTLY PUBLISHED ADVERTISING
RESEARCH
Study 2 sets out to validate our proposed definition, while
simultaneously assessing its potential to broaden the scope of
advertising, thereby facilitating the development of advertising
research (Kerr and Schultz 2010). More specifically, we ana-
lyze all articles published over the past five years (2010 to
August 2015) in the top five advertising journals: the Journal
of Advertising (JA), Journal of Advertising Research (JAR),
International Journal of Advertising (IJA), Journal of Current
Issues and Research in Advertising (JCIRA), and Journal of
Interactive Advertising (JIAD). Given that advertising research
is also published in adjacent fields of marketing and communi-
cations, we also included articles published in Journal of Mar-
keting (JM), Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), Journal of
Consumer Research (JCR), Marketing Science (MS), and
Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly (JMCQ), as
these five journals have been shown to publish the most adver-
tising articles (Kim et al. 2014).
Sample
The initial sample included 2,356 research articles pub-
lished between 2010 and 2015 (original research papers only).
Advertising-related articles in nonadvertising journals (JM,
JMR, JCR, MS, and JMCQ) were identified as advertising
research if they included a set of advertising-related keywords
in the abstract (for a similar procedure, see Kim et al. 2014).
This procedure led to a final sample consisting of 855
 TOWARD A WORKING DEFINITION OF ADVERTISING 341

TABLE 2
Overview Sampled Articles, Study 2
Journal Title Articles Advertising Related %

Journal of Advertising (JA) 179 179 100

Journal of Advertising Research (JAR) 178 178 100
International Journal of Advertising (IJA) 190 190 100
Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising (JCIRA) 73 73 100
Journal of Interactive Advertising (JIAD) 52 52 100
Journal of Marketing (JM) 280 24 9
Journal of Marketing Research (JMR) 399 51 13
Journal of Consumer Research (JCR) 452 32 7
Marketing Science (MS) 367 65 18
Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly (JMCQ) 186 11 6
Total 2,356 855

advertising articles, 79% (n D 672) published in advertising
journals and 21% (n D 183) published in nonadvertising jour-
nals (for an overview of the sample, please see Table 2). Four
trained graduate students content-analyzed the empirical stud-
ies presented in these articles following the content analysis
procedure recommended by Neuendorf (2002).
Coding Scheme
Articles were coded in terms of the three proposed dynamics.
More specifically, (1) ad format was coded to assess the media and
format dynamic, (2) advertising behaviors and focal stakeholders
to assess the “consumer” behavior dynamic, and (3) ad effects (i.e.,
focal dependent variable) to assess the extended effects dynamic.
Ad format was originally coded into a list of 19 possible formats
(see Appendix). These formats were then categorized based on
how they were “paid” and “(brand) initiated.” This led to two dif-
ferent assessments of ad format: “paid ad format,” denoting
whether the empirical investigation focuses primarily on a paid or
nonpaid mediated format (three categories: paid media ad format,
hybrid media ad format, and nonpaid media ad format) and “brand-
initiated ad format,” denoting the brand’s role in initiating the ad
(three categories: brand-initiated ad format, hybrid initiator ad for-
mat, and non-brand-initiated ad format). Whereas previous reviews
of advertising research categorize research based on focal advertis-
ing media (e.g., Kim et al. 2014), our coding thus focused on the
type of advertising format used, enabling a richer understanding of
what types of communication was considered “advertising” by
leading journal editors and researchers. The coding of “consumer”
behavior and the extended effects dynamics followed the catego-
ries used in the expert survey (see Table 1).
Results
Media and format dynamic. In total, 684 (80%) of the
sampled articles include empirical investigation of a specific
type of communication. In all, 65% (n D 448) of these
articles study communications based on paid media advertis-
ing formats (see Table 3). The share of paid media advertis-
ing formats is lower in advertising journals (n D 338, 63%)
than in nonadvertising journals (n D 110, 74%). This means
that one-third of all studies focus on ad and media formats
that do not fully fit with the current definition of advertising.
In addition, 20% (n D 139) investigate hybrid formats.
Hybrid formats are more common in advertising journals
(n D 129, 24%) than in nonadvertising journals (n D 10,
7%). When it comes to communication through nonpaid ad
formats (n D 97, 14%) these are relatively less frequent in
advertising journals (n D 69, 13%) than nonadvertising jour-
nals (n D 28, 19%). In terms of initiative, 77% of the articles
(n D 529) study advertising formats that are initiated by
advertisers. This share is larger for nonadvertising journals (n
D 127, 86%) than for advertising journals (n D 402, 75%).
Overall, the analysis suggests that research published
within the advertising discipline investigates more ad for-
mats, and these ad formats are less paid and less brand ini-
tiated than the ad formats studied outside the discipline.
What’s more, it shows that one-third of all studies focus
on ad formats that do not fit the established definition of
advertising. More studies would, however, fit with our pro-
posed definition.
“Consumer” behavior dynamic. In all, 80% (n D 681) of
the articles include studies of target audiences and their behaviors.
Consumers as receivers of the ads are most common (n D 489,
72%), but about one-third investigate partaking in advertising (n
D 191, 28%). Whereas the share of studies in which consumers
receive and partake in advertising is the same in both types of jour-
nals, nonadvertising journals have more studies in which consum-
ers actively seek out advertising (n D 22, 15% versus n D 21,
4%). Advertising journals have a larger share of studies looking at
participation in terms of ad engagement (n D 69, 13% versus n D
5, 3%). Whereas receiving the ad fits well in the current definition,
partaking does not. Looking at targets, over 90% focus on cus-
tomer audience (n D 622, 91%). This focus is more pronounced in
 TABLE 3
Overview Results, Study 2
Rater % AJ % AJ NAJ % NAJ
Dynamic Agreement Articles Articles Articles Articles Articles Articles

The media and formats dynamic 96%

Paid media ad format 448 65 338 63 110 74
Hybrid media ad format 139 20 129 24 10 7
Nonpaid media ad format 97 14 69 13 28 19
Brand initiated 529 77 402 75 127 86
Non–brand initiated 155 23 134 25 21 14
The “consumer” behavior dynamic 92%
Receiving advertising 489 72 383 72 106 72
Partaking in advertising 191 28 149 28 42 28
Customer audience 622 91 492 92 127 86
Extended audience 59 9 41 8 21 14
The extended effects dynamic 88%
Traditional effects 522 77 424 80 98 67
Extended effects 152 23 103 20 49 33
Note. AJ D advertising journals; NAJ D nonadvertising journals.

advertising journals (n D 492, 92%) compared to nonadvertising
journals (n D 127, 86%).
Overall, the analysis shows that although the vast majority
of advertising studies look at effects on consumers, more than
40% examine behaviors not included in the established defini-
tion of advertising. Again, several of these studies fit with our
proposed definition.
Extended effects dynamic. Of the articles surveyed, 79%
(n D 674) include empirical investigations of the effects of
advertising. Most of these studies investigate traditional
effects (n D 522, 77%). This tendency is stronger in advertis-
ing (n D 424, 80%) than nonadvertising journals (n D 98,
67%). When it comes to extended effects, advertising journals
focus on social effects (n D 63, 12%) and nonadvertising jour-
nals focus on value of advertising to consumers (n D 47,
32%). Overall, the analysis suggests that 77% of all articles
investigate traditional effects, which are the advertising effects
implied by the current definition of advertising (i.e., persua-
sion in terms of future behaviors related to a brand). This, in
turn, implies that more than 23% of all articles include effects
that are not fully covered by the current definition. Again,
these studies fit with our proposed definition.
Fit with definitions. Based on the categories described, we
also analyze the studies in terms of their fit with the different
definitions proposed by Richards and Curran (2002) as well as
our proposed definition. Richards and Curran’s (2002) defini-
tion is interpreted in two ways. One strict way where the defi-
nition is interpreted as paid media ad formats (i.e., ad format
D paid), targeted at consumers as an audience (target audience
D consumers and professionals), receiving the ad (ad-related
behavior D receiving), and affecting them in terms of percep-
tions and behaviors related to the ad and brand (ad effects D
traditional effects) and one open (also including ad format D
hybrid and ad behavior D receiving and partaking).
As indicated in Table 4, the Richards and Curran (2002)
definition fits with less than half of the published studies (strict
definition: n D 275, 40%; open definition: n D 327, 48%) and
our proposed new definition fits significantly better (n D 402,
59%). To explore further the fit between the established defini-
tion and future advertising research, we also compare the fit
for the definitions between digital and nondigital ad formats.
There is as significant difference (chi-square D 57.2, p <. 01)
with the established definition (openly interpreted) only fitting
with 25% of the digital formats, whereas our proposed defini-
tion fit with 47%.
Discussion
Study 2 offers a snapshot of contemporary advertising
research. The analysis again highlights the need for an updated
definition of advertising, as less than half of the empirical studies
focus on advertising in terms of the established Richards and Cur-
ran (2002) definition. Just like advertising practice is evolving, so
is advertising research. In the past five years, all marketing com-
munications tools typically listed in marketing textbooks have in
fact been covered in advertising research. However, while
research in advertising journals has evolved with new media and
formats, it has not progressed as much in terms of changing
“consumer behaviors” and extended effects. Our updated defini-
tion would potentially broaden the scope and facilitate further
development of the discipline (Kerr and Schultz 2010).
Still, it must be noted that while our proposed new defini-
tion is a significant improvement in terms of fit with contem-
porary advertising research, it would still not fit with some
 TOWARD A WORKING DEFINITION OF ADVERTISING
TABLE 4
Assessment of Definitions, Study 2
Definition n %
Richards and Curran (2002)
Strict 275 40
Open 327 48
Proposed definition: “Brand- 402 59
initiated communication
intent on impacting people”
Extended definition: “Brand- 684 100
related communication that
impacts people”
Note. AJ D advertising journals; NAJ D nonadvertising journals.
40% of the published articles and almost half of the studies
covering digital formats. In fact, it seems that the advertising
research de facto adheres to an even broader definition of
advertising as it investigates “brand-related” communications
more generally. Moreover, to cover all these studies, we would
need to replace the term brand-initiated with brand-related
and exclude the term intent from our definition. As indicated
in Table 4, this definition would fit with 100% of the articles.
In the concluding section, we discuss the implications of this
specific finding.
CONCLUSION
We found a general agreement between advertising aca-
demics and professionals that (new) media and formats, (new)
“consumer” behaviors, and extended effects drive the evolu-
tion of advertising. Iterating terms that account for these
dynamics rendered an updated working definition for advertis-
ing, which reads “brand-initiated communication intent on
impacting people.” This definition fits the purpose of enabling
a common language for education, research, and practice
(Richards and Curran 2002), while simultaneously broadening
the scope and facilitating the development of the discipline
(Kerr and Schultz 2010). While the definition is rather broad
and could indeed be argued to apply to, for example, public
relations and sales promotion as well, our stance is that the
definition of advertising needs to evolve in synchrony with the
blurring boundaries between “advertising,” “PR,” and “action
marketing.” It is a fact that the advertising industry is already
embracing and executing communications that combine the
various elements and, driven by our identified dynamics, will
increasingly do so in the future.
Nevertheless, we argue that the proposed definition makes
advertising unique versus tangent areas, as it comprises only
communication that matches all its terms. For example, public
relations that are not brand initiated nor clearly intent on
impacting people would not be considered advertising. Simi-
larly, sales promotion without a clear communication element
343
AJ % AJ NAJ % NAJ
217 40 58 39
258 48 69 47
314 59 88 59
536 100 148 100
would not be considered advertising either. Indeed, we believe
that a working definition that blurs traditional boundaries (for
example, found in textbooks) and allows for several forms of
communication, while requiring that all terms are met, will
both enable and guide the development of current and future
advertising that allows reinventing rather than dying with the
changing technology, behaviors, and effects.
Interestingly, our content analysis suggests that, as broad as
our updated working definition is, it is still too narrow to fit a
large proportion of recently published advertising research. In
effect, recent research on advertising fits the even broader defi-
nition: “brand-related communication that impacts people.”
Actually, one could conclude that research that did not fit a
working definition should consequently not be considered
advertising research. On the other hand, in line with Kerr and
Schultz (2010), one could argue that research should have a
wider scope to explore new areas and routes that may or may
not be fit for practice. We believe the two can be reconciled by
applying our updated working definition on the identification,
practice, and development of advertising, while still embracing
research that covers related communication (per the broader
definition noted) so that it can continuously inform, explore,
and challenge the boundaries of advertising. Once we under-
stand such communications better, the ones that have desirable
impacts on brands are likely to become part of the initiatives of
advertisers and thus become “brand initiated” in the sense indi-
cated by our updated working definition for advertising:
“Brand-initiated communication intent on impacting people.”
FUNDING
The authors are grateful for funding from Torsten och
Ragnar S€oderbergs Stiftelser.
REFERENCES
Bissell, Kimberly, and Amy Rask (2010), “Real Women on Real Beauty: Self-
Discrepancy, Internalisation of the Thin Ideal, and Perceptions of
344 M. DAHLEN AND S. ROSENGREN
Attractiveness and Thinness in Dove’s Campaign for Real Beauty,” Inter-
national Journal of Advertising, 29 (4), 643–68.
Bobinski, George S., Jr., and Gabriel G. Ramırez (1994), “Advertising to
Investors: The Effect of Financial-Relations Advertising on Stock Volume
and Price,” Journal of Advertising, 23 (4), 13–28.
Carlson, Les (2015), “The Journal of Advertising: Historical, Structural, and
Brand Equity Considerations,” Journal of Advertising, 44 (1), 80–84.
Chang, Chingching (2014), “Guilt Regulation: The Relative Effects of Altruis-
tic versus Egoistic Appeals for Charity Advertising,” Journal of Advertis-
ing, 43 (3), 211–27.
Cheong, Yunjae, Federico de Gregorio, and Kihan Kim (2014),
“Advertising Spending Efficiency among Top U. S. Advertisers from
1985 to 2012: Overspending or Smart Managing,” Journal of Advertis-
ing, 43 (4), 344–58.
Colliander, Jonas, Micael Dahlen, and Erik Modig (2015), “Twitter for Two:
Investigating the Effects of Dialogue with Customers in Social Media,”
International Journal of Advertising, 34 (2), 181–94.
Dahlen, Micael, and Mats Edenius (2007), “When Is Advertising Advertising?
Comparing Responses to Non-Traditional and Traditional Advertising
Media,” Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 29 (1),
33–42.
Defever, Christine, Mario Pandelaere, and Keith Roe (2011), “Inducing Value-
Congruent Behavior through Advertising and the Moderating Role of Atti-
tudes toward Advertising,” Journal of Advertising, 40 (2), 25–37.
Ehrenberg, Andrew, Neil Barnard, Rachel Kennedy, and Helen Bloom (2002),
“Brand Advertising as Creative Publicity,” Journal of Advertising
Research, 42 (4), 7–18.
Eisend, Martin (2015), “Have We Progressed Marketing Knowledge? A Meta-
Meta-Analysis of Effect Sizes in Marketing Research,” Journal of Market-
ing, 79 (3), 23–40.
Faber, Ronald J. (2015), “Peeking under the Curtain and over the Horizon: The
Reflections of Another Former Editor,” Journal of Advertising, 44 (3),
289–95.
Goodley, Simon (2015), “Marketing Is Dead: Says Saatchi and Saatchi Boss—
Long Live Lovemarks,” The Guardian, March 3, http://www.theguardian.
com/media/2015/mar/03/advertising-is-dead-says-saatchi-saatchi-boss-
long-live-lovemarks.
Gulas, Charles S., and Kim McKeage (2000), “Extending Social Comparison:
An Examination of the Unintended Consequences of Idealized Advertising
Imagery,” Journal of Advertising, 29 (2), 17–28.
Heath, Robert, David Brandt, and Agnes Nairn (2006), “Brand Relationships:
Strengthened by Emotion, Weakened by Attention,” Journal of Advertising
Research, 46 (4), 410–19.
Hillebrand, Bas, Paul H. Driessen, and Oliver Koll (2015), “Stakeholder Mar-
keting: Theoretical Foundations and Required Capabilities,” Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 43 (4), 411–28.
Juniper Research (2013), “Digital Advertising Gets Personal,” Juniper
Research White Paper Series.
Karrah, James A. (2004), “Does Advertising Influence Investors? Evidence
and Research Propositions,” Journal of Current Issues and Research in
Advertising, 26 (2), 1–10.
Keller, Kevin L. (2012), “Understanding the Richness of Brand Relationships:
Research Dialogue on Brands as Intentional Agents,” Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 22 (2), 186–90.
Kerr, Gayle F., and Don Schultz (2010), “Maintenance Person or Architect?
The Role of Academic Advertising Research in Building Better Under-
standing,” International Journal of Advertising, 29 (4), 547–68.
Kim, Kyongseok, Jameson L. Hayes, J. Adam Avant, and Leonard N. Reid
(2014), “Trends in Advertising Research: A Longitudinal Analysis of
Leading Advertising, Marketing, and Communication Journals, 1980 to
2010,” Journal of Advertising, 43 (3), 296–316.
Kopf, Dennis A., Ivonne M. Torres, and Carl Enomoto (2011), “Advertising’s
Unintended Consequence,” Journal of Advertising, 40 (4), 5–18.
Lawrence, Benjamin, Susan Fournier, and Frederic Brunel (2013), “When
Companies Don’t Make the Ad: A Multimethod Inquiry into the Differen-
tial Effectiveness of Consumer-Generated Advertising,” Journal of Adver-
tising, 42 (4), 292–307.
Lee, Angela Y., and Aparna A. Labroo (2004), “The Effect of Conceptual and
Perceptual Fluency on Brand Evaluation,” Journal of Marketing Research,
41 (2), 151–65.
Lee, Michael (2014), “The Ad Agency Is Dead—Or Is It?,” Forbes, October
29, http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellee/2014/10/29/the-ad-agency-is-
dead-or-is-it/3/#64422d4e625e.
Muncy, James A. (1991), “The Journal of Advertising: A Twenty Year
Appraisal,” Journal of Advertising, 20 (4), 1–11.
Nan, Xiaoli, and Ronald J. Faber (2004), “Advertising Theory: Reconceptual-
izing the Building Blocks,” Marketing Theory, 4 (1–2), 7–30.
Neuendorf, Kimberly A. (2002), The Content Analysis Guidebook, Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pasadeos, Yorgo (1985), “A Bibliometric Study of Advertising Citations,”
Journal of Advertising, 14 (4), 52–68.
———, Joseph Phelps, and Aimee Edison (2008), “Searching for Our Own
Theory in Advertising: An Update of Research Networks,” Journalism and
Mass Communication Quarterly, 85 (4), 785–806.
———, ———, and Bong-Hyun Kim (1998), “Disciplinary Impact of Adver-
tising Scholars: Temporal Comparisons of Influential Authors, Works, and
Research Networks,” Journal of Advertising, 27 (4), 53–66.
Pitt, Leyland F., Pierre Berthon, Albert Caruana, and Jean-Paul Berthon
(2005), “The State of Theory in the Three Premier Advertising Journals: A
Research Note,” International Journal of Advertising, 24 (2), 241–49.
PQ Media (2015), Global Branded Entertainment Marketing Forecast 2015–
19, http://www.pqmedia.com.
Pruitt, Stephen W., T. Bettina Cornwell, and John M. Clark (2004), “The NAS-
CAR Phenomenon: Auto Racing Sponsorships and Shareholder Wealth,”
Journal of Advertising Research, 44 (3), 281–96.
Reilly, Frank K., and Anthony F. McGann (1977), “Advertising Decisions and
Stockholders’ Wealth,” Journal of Advertising Research, 17 (4), 49–56.
Richards, Jef I., and Catharine M. Curran (2002), “Oracles on ‘Advertising’:
Searching for a Definition,” Journal of Advertising, 31 (2), 62–77.
Rosengren, Sara (2016), “From Advertising Avoidance to Advertising
Approach: Rethinking Attention in New Advertising Formats,” in Adver-
tising in New Formats and Media: Current Research and Implications for
Marketers, Patrick De Pelsmacker, ed., Bingley, United Kingdom: Emer-
ald Group, 3–18.
———, and Niklas Bondesson (2014), “Consumer Advertising as a Signal of
Employer Attractiveness,” International Journal of Advertising, 33 (2),
253–69.
———, and Micael Dahlen (2015), “Exploring Advertising Equity: How a
Brand’s Past Advertising May Affect Consumer Willingness to Approach
Its Future Ads,” Journal of Advertising, 44 (1), 1–13.
———, ———, and Erik Modig (2013), “Think Outside the Ad: Can Adver-
tising Creativity Benefit More than the Advertiser?,” Journal of Advertis-
ing, 42 (4), 320–30.
Rust, Roland T., and Richard W. Oliver (1994), “Notes and Comments: Death
of Advertising,” Journal of Advertising, 23 (4), 71–78.
Soh, Hyeonjin, Leonard N. Reid, and Karen Whitehill King (2009),
“Measuring Trust in Advertising,” Journal of Advertising, 38 (2), 83–103.
Sorofman, Jake (2015), “What’s the Role of Advertising When Machines Do
the Buying?,” Gartner for Marketing Leaders, July 9, http://blogs.gartner.
com/jake-sorofman/whats-the-role-of-advertising-when-machines-do-the-
buying/.
Speck, Paul Surgi, and Michael T. Elliott (1997), “Predictors of Advertising
Avoidance in Print and Broadcast Media,” Journal of Advertising, 26 (3),
61–76.
Starch, Daniel (1923), Principles of Advertising, Chicago, IL: A.W. Shaw
Company.
 TOWARD A WORKING DEFINITION OF ADVERTISING 345

Statista (2015a), “Distribution of Global Ad Expenditure,” http://www.statista.
com/statistics/269333/distribution-of-global-advertising-expenditure/.
——— (2015b), “Video Games Advertising Revenue,” http://www.statista.
com/statistics/238140/global-video-games-advertising-revenue/.
Stewart, David W. (1992), “Speculations on the Future of Advertising
Research,” Journal of Advertising, 21 (3), 1–18.
Terlutter, Ralf, and Michael L. Capella (2013), “The Gamification of Advertis-
ing: Analysis and Research Directions of In-Game Advertising, Adver-
games, and Advertising in Social Network Games,” Journal of
Advertising, 42 (2/3), 95–112.
Tucker, Elizabeth M., Nora J. Rifon, Eun Mi Lee, and Bonnie B Reece (2012),
“A Test of Green Claim Types and the Role of Individual Consumer Char-
acteristics for Green Ad Response,” Journal of Advertising, 41 (4), 9–23.
Vargo, Stephen L., and Robert F. Lusch (2004), “Evolving to a New Dominant
Logic for Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 64 (1), 1–17.
———, and ——— (2008), “Service-Dominant Logic: Continuing the
Evolution,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (1), 1–10.
Winkler, Jens, and Roger Moser (2016), “Biases in future-oriented Delphi
studies: A cognitive perspective,” Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 105, 63–76.
Yale, Laura, and Mary C. Gilly (1988), “Trends in Advertising Research: A
Look at the Content of Marketing-Oriented Journals from 1976 to 1985,”
Journal of Advertising, 17 (1), 12–22.
Yoon, Hye Jin (2015), “Humor Effects in Shame-Inducing Health Issue Adver-
tising: The Moderating Effects of Fear of Negative Evaluation,” Journal of
Advertising, 44 (2), 126–39.

APPENDIX 1
Ad Format Coding Manual “Paid” “Brand-initiated” Digital

1 D Print ad 1 1 2
2 D TV commercial 1 1 2
3 D Radio commercial 1 1 2
4 D Outdoor ad 1 1 2
5 D Cinema ad 1 1 2
6 D Creative media/guerrilla/ambient 3 1 2
(non-traditional media)
7 D (Sales) promotion/trial/direct marketing 3 1 2
8 D Sponsorship 1 1 2
9 D (Celebrity) Endorsements (not in ads) 2 2 2
10 D Product placement 2 2 2
11 D Banner ads/online advertising 1 1 1
( D paid placements)
12 D Websites/e-mail advertising 3 1 1
( D own media online)
13 D Social media 2 2 1
14 D Search advertising (SEO) 1 1 1
15 D Mobile advertising 2 1 1
16 D Advergames 2 1 1
17 D Publicity 3 2 2
18 D Word-of-mouth/eWOM 3 2 1
19 D Packaging/brand elements 3 1 2
(e.g., brand name, brand extension)
20 D No empirical study/No specific ad format
Coding: 1 D paid 1 D brand-initiated 1 D digital
2 D hybrid 2 D hybrid/non-brand 2 D non-digital
3 D own/earned initiated