NAVEEN DONTHU

COMPARATIVE ADVERTISING INTENSITY

C
NAVEEN DONTHU is assistant pfotessor in ttie department of marketing al Georgia State University He holds a Ph.D in marketing trom the University of Texas at Austin. Professor Donthu's research in ihe areas of product positioning, trade area anaiysis, outdoor and comparative advertising, and Hispanic consumer research have been published m Marketing Science. Journal ol Consumer Research. Journal ol Advertising. Journal ol Advertising Research. Marketing Letters. Psychology & Marketing, and Journal of the Academy of Marketirig Science

comparative advertisements are being widely used in print and television media since its use was legitimized by an FTC ruling in 1971. The effectiveness of comparative advertisements have been studied and tested by numerous academic and industry studies. The results of these studies have been mixed and conflicting, which has prompted many researchers to explore the cause behind such diverse results regarding comparative advertising effectiveness. Comparative advertisements have been found to be no more effective than traditional noncomparative advertising by many researchers, including Goodv^/in and Etgar (1980), Droge and Dormon (1987), and Swinyard (1980). At the same time, many researchers, including Demirdjian (1983), Earl and Pride (1980), and Tannenbaum (1976), show that comparative advertisements are very effective and advocate its use over noncomparative advertisements. In a recent article, Rogers and Williams (1989) surveyed 104 papers dealing with comparative advertising and found that 17 of the 104 papers concluded that comparative advertising is more effective than noncomparative advertising, 30 of the 104 papers concluded that comparative advertising is no better than noncomparative advertising, while the remaining 57 had neutral results. A closer look at the above

studies will indicate that they have used very different types of comparative advertisements. Some comparative advertisements are very explicit, name the competing brand, and make comparisons on more than one attribute (for example, price, quality, horsepovi^er, softness, etc.). Other comparative advertisements make only an overall comparison and use the "leading brand" approach without even naming the "compared to" brand, and the message is very subtle in nature. Given that there are such significant variations between comparative advertisements, it is not surprising that the results in this area are so mixed (Walker and Anderson, 1991; Lamb, Pride, and Pletcher, 1978). We believe that computing the effectiveness of comparative advertisements, and comparing its effectiveness with noncomparative advertisements, makes sense only after the intensity of the comparative advertisement has been accounted for. Researchers have shown that comparative advertisements increase consumer involvement (Muehling, Stolman, and Grossbart, 1990), and as the intensity of the comparative ad increases, the increase in message involvement should also increase the recall (and ultimately the effectiveness) of the comparative advertisement. In this paper we will first look at differences in comparative advertisements and develop a measure of comparative advertising
53

Journal ot ADVERTISING RESEARCHNOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1992

C O M P A R A T I \' t

A DVt 1 T[S IN C <

intensity (CAI) based on these differences. In the past, attempts have been made to classify comparative advertisements on the basis of their messages (Muehling and Kangun, 1985; Hisrich, 1983); however, researchers have not developed an explicit scale to measure comparative advertising intensity as proposed in this article. We will then empirically test the effectiveness of comparative advertisements, when compared to noncomparative advertisements, after they have been classified based on their intensity. We measure consumer recall of ads and consumer attitude toward the ad. Finally, we discuss the theoretical and managerial implications of comparative advertising intensity.

tive) comparisons (e.g., "Our beer costs a little more but tastes better than Coors.") (X3 - 0); one-sided comparisons only (e.g., "Our computer costs less than IBM and runs faster than Apple computers.") (X3 = 1). 4. Less than 50 percent of the time spent on comparisons (X4 - 0); more than 50 percent of the time spent on comparisons (X4 - 1). For any given comparative advertisement, its intensity (CAI) may be computed as: CAI = XI -F X2 + X3 + X4 A noncomparative advertisement will have CAI = 0, and at the other extreme, a very intense comparative ad will have CAI = 4. All other comparative ads will have a CAI score anywhere between 0 and 3. Hence, the basic idea proposed here is that all comparative advertisements may be classified on the intensity scale where CAI = 0 implies noncomparative or very low intensity comparative ad CAI = 1 implies low intensity comparative ad CAI = 2 implies somewhat intensive comparative ad CAI = 3 implies an intensive comparative ad and CAI = 4 implies very intensive comparative ad

Research Design and Data Coliection

The data for the study was collected from part-time students at a nontraditional, mediumsized state university. All subjects worked half- to full-time at private and government offices. A careful examination of the sample demographics revealed that their average age, sex, marital status, and income were comparable to the average values for the city, except for their education level. The education level of the sample was slightly skewed to the higher side. Of the 240 subjects that participated in the study, 8 were not usable as they provided incomplete responses. Finally, there were 232 data sets that were complete and usable. Subjects met in batches of 30 each. At the beginning of the session, the subjects filled out a questionnaire containing demographic information. Next, they viewed a videotape containing a 30-minute situation comedy recorded from a major network TV channel. Whenever the program stopped for commercial breaks, "test ads" were inserted. These "test ads" were obtained from various network shows. A total of 12 "test ads" were inserted in the tape. Six of the ads were comparative advertisements of different degrees of intensity. The other six ads were noncomparative in nature with a CAI of 0. The distribution of the CAI for the 12 ads are shown in Table 1. The subjects were instructed to sit back, relax, and enjoy the show. They were given no information on what they were going to see or what they should look for. At the end of the program, subjects were asked to recall the advertisements they had seen and describe them in as much

Intensity of Comparative Advertisements

After a careful examination of many comparative advertisements, interviews with managers at advertising agencies, and a survey of the literature, we determined that most comparative advertisements may be classified on the following four dimensions: 1. Does not name the "compared to" brand or uses the "leading brand" approach (e.g., "Our detergent is better than the leading brand.") (XI = 0); explicitly names the competing brand (e.g., "Our soap is better than Dove soap.") (XI = 1). 2. Makes overall comparisons (e.g., "Our brand is better than Tide.") (X2 = 0); makes comparisons on one or more attributes (e.g., "Toyota gives more miles per gallon than Honda but costs $2000 less than Honda." (X2 = 1). 3. Two-sided (positive and nega54

Research Question
The main purpose of this research is to examine the effect of comparative advertisements' intensity on effectiveness and hence resolve the controversy surrounding the effectiveness of comparative advertising. In particular, we will assess the effect of comparative advertisements' intensity on consumer recall and attitude toward the ad.

Journal of ADVERTiSiNG RESEARCHNOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1992

COMPARATIVE

ADVERTISING

Table 1 Characteristics of the Advertisements Used in the Study

Type Very intense comparative ad Intense comparative ad Somewhat intense comparative ad Lovi/ intensity comparative ad Noncomparative or very low intensity comparative ad Intensity level (CAI) Number ot ads

detail as possible. If subjects recalled a particular ad, they were given a score of 1 for that ad; and if they did not recall a particular ad, they were given a score of 0. Hence each subject had 12 recall scores (for each of the 12 ads used in the study). Next, they were asked a series of questions to measure their attitudes toward the ads. The 10 questions asked to measure their attitude toward an ad are shown in Table 2. This scale was developed by Holmes and Crocker (1987) and has been tested for reliability (the Cronback alpha was 0.88). Respondent attitude toward a particular ad was measured by summing, and then scaling, the respondent's score on the 10 questions for that ad. The same questions were asked for all of the 12 ads. Respondents viewed each of the 12 ads a second time before answering

the attitude questions.

Results
If the intensity of the comparative advertisements was related to their effectiveness, then we would expect the percent of subjects recalling any particular ad to be directly related to its intensity. Also, the average attitude scores for any particular ad would be directly related to the intensity of the ad. In the case of recall, we found that the recall of comparative ads is directly proportional to their comparative intensity. Figure 1 shows the average recall scores for different intensity levels (which could vary from 0 to 4). The 5 intensity levels are shown on the X axis and the average recall scores (percent recalling the ad) are shown on the Y axis. From this figure, it is

clear that as the intensity of the comparative advertisement increases its recall increases. All observed differences were statistically significant at the 0.01 level. ln the case of attitude toward the ad, the relationship between intensity and attitude was not so simple. It increased with lower levels of intensity but dropped at higher levels. Figure 2 shows the average attitude scores for different intensity levels (which could vary from 0 to 4). The 5 intensity levels are shown on the X axis and the average attitude scores are shown on the Y axis. From this figure, it is clear that as the intensity of the comparative ad increases, the consumer attitude remains constant, or increases slightly (the increase was not significant at the 0.01 level), until the intensity level reaches 3. However, for the maximum intensity (CAI = 4) comparative advertisements, the consumer attitude toward the ad decreases. The average attitude score for CAI = 4 was significantly (0.01 level) lower than for all other intensities.

Discussion
Comparative ads are being used increasingly in print and television media. However, there is a major controversy regarding comparative advertising effectiveness. The results are very mixed and vary from "very effective" to "not as effective as noncomparative ads." It was observed that comparative advertisements had a great amount of variation in terms of their intensity. Some of the comparative ads were very intense in nature while others were very mild and only suggestive. A scale was developed to measure comparative advertising intensity, and a study was designed to measure the effect of this dif55

Tabie 2 Scaie Used to Measure Attitude Toward Advertisements*

unappealing unbelievable unimpressive unattractive uninformative not clear non eye-catching extremely unlikely unconvincing overall disliking appealing believable impressive attractive informative clear eye-catching extremely likely convincing overall liking

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

Journal of ADVERTISING RESEARCHNOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1992

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

A
V

0.71

e r a
g e R e c a
0.42

0.50

Comparative Advertising Intensity (CAI) ference in comparative advertising intensity on its effectiveness. In this study two measures of effectiveness, recall and attitude toward the ad, were used. Comparative ads have been shown to increase consumer involvement with the message, and hence it was hypothesized that as the intensity of the comparative advertisement increases, its recall will increase due to its ability to increase subject involvement with the message being communicated. It was also hypothesized that consumer attitude toward a comparative ad will also be a function of the intensity of the ad. The intensity of a comparative advertisement was defined as a score between 0 and 4 based upon whether (1) the competing brand name was mentioned, (2)
56

a comparison was made at the attribute level, (3) whether the comparison was one or two sided, and (4) the amount of ad time that was spent on the comparison task. The results of the study showed that comparative advertisement recall was directly related to its intensity. As the intensity of the ad increased, its recall also increased. Consumers tend to recall more intense comparative ads than less intense comparative ads. In the case of consumer attitude toward the ad, the average attitude score remained constant, or increased slightly, as the ad intensity increased up to a certain point and then started to drop. Consumers seemed to have a positive attitude (comparable to that of noncomparative

ads) for comparative ads up to a certain amount of intensity, but their attitude dropped after the comparative ad became very intense. This finding has a major implication for comparative advertising effectiveness research. The study shows that when discussing comparative advertising effectiveness, it does not make sense to treat all comparative ads as equal. The intensity of the comparative ad should be factored in. Once the comparative ad intensity has been accounted for, the results regarding comparative advertising effectiveness may not be as conflicting as seen in the past. In a 1989 study, Rogers and Williams found that both academic researchers and practitioners agreed that comparative advertisements achieve better message recall than noncomparative advertisements. This finding was borne out by our study also. Rogers and Williams also found that when it comes to consumer attitudes, academic researchers and practitioners do not agree on comparative advertising effectiveness. Academic researchers feel that comparative advertisements are as good as noncomparative advertisements when it comes to improving consumer attitude toward the ad; while practitioners feel that comparative advertisements are less effective than noncomparative advertisements in improving

. . . comparative advertisements may be as effective, or less effective, than noncomparative advertising, depending upon the advertisements' intensity.

Journal of ADVERTISING RESEARCHNOVEMBER/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 the ad. This conflicting conclusion is also noticed in our study. We see in this study that comparative advertisements may be as effective, or less effective, than noncomparative advertising, depending upon the advertisements' intensity. Hence our study has found support for the academic researchers' conclusions and the practitioners' perceptions. Several other factors, such as humor or sex appeal, may also impact the comparative advertising effectiveness. In this study we only investigated the effect of the intensity of comparative advertisements. However, the results show that by accounting for the comparative ads' intensity alone, we are able to uncover significant differences in comparative advertisement effectiveness. This does not necessarily mean that other factors are not relevant. They are just beyond the scope of this paper and hence have not been accounted for in this study. Managerially, the implication is that consumers tend to recall comparative ads more than noncomparative advertisements. In fact the recall increases as the intensity of the comparative ad increases. However, consumer attitude toward the comparative ad does not increase as its intensity increases. Consumers tend to have a negative attitude toward comparative ads which are very intense in nature. If a decision has been made to use comparative advertisements and the main goal of the campaign is to increase consumer recall of advertisements, then the obvious recommendation is to use very intense comparative advertisements. Intense comparative ads may be created by explicitly naming the competing brand, making only positive (one-sided) comparisons at the

Figure 2 Average Attitude Scores for Ads

A
V

e
r
1

0.72 0.66 0.66 _

0.72 \ \ \ 0.48

a g e A
t t i t u d

H
1

i i 1 1 1 i i i 1
I 0

1 1 1
1 1 i i
i

1 1 1 1

r
1 1 1 1
1
1 3

1 1
1 1
1

Comparative Advertising Intensity (CAI) attribute level, and spending most of the ad time on these comparisons. On the other hand, if the campaign goal is to create a positive attitude toward the ad or the product, then moderately intensive comparative ads mav be more effective. After considering the tradeoffs involved, it may be recommended that, in order to achieve optimal recall and optimal consumer attitude, comparative ads should be moderately intense (CAI = 2 or 3). Here a simple study, using part-time students, was designed to test the hypothesis. The reliability of the present study's findings should be checked using other populations. Alternate measures of comparative ad effectiveness, other than recall and attitude used in this study, should also be used in the future. The ultimate goal of comparative advertising is to increase consumer purchase intention and finally the sales of the product being advertised, not just increase recall and create a positive attitude toward the ad. In conclusion, comparative advertisements vary in terms of their intensity. To get a proper feel for comparative advertising effectiveness, its intensity should be factored. The bottom line is "How comparative is the comparative advertisement?"
57

The bottom line is "How comparative is the comparative advertisement?"

Journal of ADVERTISING RESEARCHNOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1992

C OM PA RA rIVU AD Vt R TI SIN G

References

Demirdjian, Z. S. "Sales Effectiveness of Comparative Advertising: An Experimental Field Investigation." Journal of Consumer Behavior 10, 4 (1983): 36264. Droge, Cornelia, and Rene Y. Dormon. "Associative Positioning Strategies Through Comparative Advertising: Attributed versus Overall Similarity Approaches." Journal of Marketing Research 25, 2 (1987): 377-88. Earl, Ronald L., and William M. Pride. "The Effects of Advertisement Structure, Message Sideness, and Performance Test Results on Print Advertising." Journal of Advertising 9, 3 (1980): 3644.

Hisrich, Robert D. "Executive Advertisers' View of Comparative Advertising" Sloan Management Revim-' 25, 1 (1983): 39-50. Holmes, John H., and Kenneth E. Crocker. "Predisposition in the Comparative Effectiveness of Rational, Functional and Discrepant Appeals for Both." Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 15, 1 (1987): 11-18. Lamb, C. W.; William M. Pride, and B. A. Pletcher. "A Taxanomy for Comparative Advertisement." Journal of Advertising 7, 4 (1977): 43-47. Muehling, Darrel D.; Jeffery J. Stoltman; and Sanford Grossbart. "The Impact of Comparative Advertising on Levels of Message Involvement." Journal of Advertising 19, 4 (1990): 41-50.

mission." Journal of Public Policy

and Marketing 4, 4 (1985): 112-28. Rogers, John C , and Terrell G. Williams. "Comparative Advertising Effectiveness: Practitioners' Perceptions versus Academic Research Findings." Journal of Advertising Research 29, 5

(1989): 22-36. Swinyard, William. "The Interaction Between Comparative Advertising and Copy Claim Variation." Journal of fAarketing Re-

search 18, 2 (1981): 175-86. Tennenbaum, Stanley L "For and Against Comparative Advertising." Advertising Age, July 5, 1976. Walker, Beth A., and Helen H. Anderson. "Reconceptualizing Comparative Advertising: A Framework and Theory of Effects." Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 18. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 1991.

Goodwin, Etgar, and Michael Etgar. "An Experimental Investigation of Comparative Advertising: Impact of Message Appeal, , and Norman Kangan. Information Load, and Utility of "The Multidimensionality of Product Class." Jourjial of Market- Comparative Advertising: Impliing Research 17, 2 (1980): 187-202. cations for Federal Trade Com-

. <

58

Journai o( ADVERTISING RESEARCHNOVEMBER/DECEMBER 1992