Impact of Creative Advertising on Consumer's Attitudes - Literature review Example

? The Impact of Creative Advertising on Consumer's Attitudes towards High and Low Involvement Products Table of Contents Introduction 3 Creativity aspects of advertisements 3 Classification of the products in the basis of involvement 4 Creativity in advertising 4 Effect of creativity towards the attitude of people 5 Effects of creativity on psychology 6 Conclusion 10 Reference List 12 Introduction The creation of products and services involves the participation of two different types of entities, the producer and receiver of service and products (Robert and Xiaojing, 2004). The extent of involvement of the two different types of entities depends upon the type of product and service. For example, the products which are intangible in nature involve less involvement of the receiver (Achrol, 2011). The receivers are the people for whom the services or products are created. The discussion here pertains to the effect of creative advertising on the attitude of the consumer (Punkaj, 2006). Creativity aspects of advertisements Advertisements are a way of communicating the concept and idea or views regarding the products and services (Allan and Michael, 2010). The impact or effect an advertisement over the mindset of the customer differs from person to person. The impact of advertisement is different for each type of customer. In order to create the required effect on the customer’s mind, advertisements should have an edge (Piercy, 2011). Edge comes from creativity aspect in advertisement. In order to bring creativity in the advertisements, four factors are analysed. These four factors are target audience, area, media used and the purpose of advertisement (Andrews and Smith, 1996). If these four factors are considered in creation of the advertisement then it will be able to make the products distinct from the others, to communicate information, push the customer to increase the base of distribution, to encourage the preference of brand and to decrease the cost of sales (Parasuraman, 2009). Classification of the products in the basis of involvement There are mainly two different types of products high involvement products and low involvement products. In high involvement products, the customers take considerable time to make decisions (Miles, 2006). While in the low involvement products the customers take considerably less time to make the decision. In order to explain the difference between the high involvement products and low involvement products, an example between toothpaste and laptop is given (Bajaj, 2001). Here tooth paste is the low involvement products, while the laptop is a high involvement product. Both the products are evaluated on the basis of the benefits that can be received from them (Mintzberg and Waters, 2009). Apart from that, a high involvement product costs considerable more than a low end product (Benner and Sandstrom, 2012). Due to this reason the customer looks for differentiating factors in that particular product, which are not present in other products. The customer looks for specific features in the product that justifies the price paid for that product (Morgan and Linda, 2005). In other words the customer wants to achieve greater differentiation within the particular budget earmarked. In case of low involvement product, the products are more or less the same, offering the same benefits and features at the same cost (Bonaccorsi and Daraio, 2009). Thus, the low involvement products are characterized by less products differentiation. So for this reason the customer can reach to a conclusion easily (Robert, James and Jean, 2004). Creativity in advertising Creativity helps to transform thinking which are strategic in nature into ideas. These ideas then enable the advertisers to create effective communication (Samiee and Roth, 2003). There are mainly three different stages in creativity; create, creation and creative. In order to create, the advertisers need to float a new idea that is unique and different from the other ideas. The new idea is linked to the main purpose. It constitutes the process of creation (Chiefele, 2012). Creativity is the last stage. In this stage the new idea floated before is executed in such a way that gives the impression of performing the usual day to day action in a completely different way (Noordeweir, John and Nevin, 2006). The most important aspect in the generation of creativity is the middle stage or the second stage (Clark and Mathur, 2011). The second stage holds the key in making the creative aspect of the advertisement come to the forefront. The steps involved in the process of creativity are immersion, digestion, incubation, illumination and verification (Meyer, 2011). Effect of creativity towards the attitude of people Creativity has profound effect on the attitude of the people. The first or the initial impact of creativity in advertisements is the creation of awareness or attention. The last stage is the action taken by the customer (Mentzer, Flint and Hult, 2001). Thus the aim is to reduce the gap between creation and action. Studies indicated that creative advertisements help to reduce the gap between the number of people who view advertisement and the actual number of sales (Simmonds, 2005). The number of actual sales that transpire from viewing the advertisement is very less. The impact of advertising on the attitude of the people can be explained from two perspectives (Cravens, 2010). For example, according to the DAGMR model creativity in advertisement involves the following four stages, which are awareness, comprehension, conviction and action (Das, Quelch, and Swartz, 2000). The traditional models on the other hand involve the basis stages of attention, interest, desire and action. Thus, there is a marked difference between a normal advertisement and a creative advertisement (Slater, 2005). Effects of creativity on psychology The discussion pertains to the effect of psychology of customers while dealing with low involvement products and high involvement products. David, James and Arthur (2011) conducted study on the buying behaviours on two groups of people. Both the groups consisted of 235 respondents (Smith, Jiemiao and Xiaojing, 2008). The first group is shown a series of advertisements which lacks creativity, while the second group is shown creative advertisements. Statistical tests like‘t tests’ are done to depict the change in the buying behaviour of the two groups. The analysis revealed that there is no considerable difference in the buying behaviour of the two groups of people (Swee and Sharon, 2000). In order to improve upon the research work conducted by (David, 2010), a new set of experiments are performed. In this research work a new dimension was added. This dimension considered the difference in the buying behaviours of the people who belonged to the same group (Swee, Yih and Siew, 2007). The analysis revealed that there is significant difference in the buying behaviour of the people within the group. Both statistical tests are done to indicate the effect of creativity on the psychology of the people (Flint, Woodruff, and Gardial, 2002). Although none of the experiments indicated if the presence of difference is due to involvement of different types of products, like high involvement products and low involvement products (Mentzer, Flint and Hult, 2001). A point that must be noted in the experiments both within groups and between groups, the respondents were given a mixture of high involvement and low involvement products. Flint, Woodruff and Gardial (2007) were first to notice this short coming. In order to fix the short coming a new set if experiment was conducted by (Gabriele and Peter, 1992). In this research the same numbers of respondents are chosen and the respondents are exposed to non creative advertisements. Following the exposure, the buying behaviour of the respondents is tracked for seven days (Mascarenhas, Baveja and Jamil, 2011). The aim is to indicate if there is marled increase or decrease in purchase of high involvement and low involvement products. The analysis indicated that there is no marked difference in the purchase of the high involvement and low involvement products (Varadarajan and Jayachandran, 2003). The experiment thus established the point that non creative advertisement does not create any difference in the buying pattern of high involvement and low involvement products. In order to complete the experiment the respondents are again shown advertisements (Garrick, 2011). This time the experiments were all creative in nature (While, 1972). After this the buying behaviour of the two types of products are evaluated. The evaluation revels that the buying pattern of the low involvement products tend to remain the same, while there is considerable change in the buying pattern of the high involvement products (Gebrekidan and Awuah, 2003). This experiment only proved that the creative advertisement has a different psychological impact on the respondents and this in turn influenced the buying behaviour of the respondents. The set of experiments described above are only about establishing the cause and effect relationship between creativity and high involvement and low involvement products Ger (2000). Although none of the experiments throw light on factors that are affected by creativity in advertisements. George (1993) conducted experiments to find out the driving factors behind the change in the pattern of the buying behaviour after being exposed to advertisements that are creative by nature. Samples of 355 respondents are shown advertisements which lasts from 20 seconds to as long as 90 seconds (Mascarenhas, Baveja and Jamil, 2011). Then the participants are asked a series of questions (Gina, 2013). Applying factor analysis and dimension reduction technique four important criteria are identified. These four important factors are awareness, comprehension, conviction and action. Gummesson (2010) argued that sample selected for the experiment is not homogenous in nature. Since the sample involved people of different income group, thus the discretionary spending pattern is also different and so are the buying habits and patterns (Hakim, 2010). Thus, a new improved set of experiments are conducted. In this new set of experiments the sample consisted of same number of respondents and they were asked same set of questions, although the only difference is the homogeneity in the sample (Martin, 1995). The experiment indicated that like the previous experiment, there are four factors. Although, the four factors indicated in this experiment are different from the four factors indicated in the previous experiment (Woodruff, 2002). This indicated that the difference can be accounted for the difference in the heterogeneity or homogeneity in the sample. The four new factors are motivation, perception, learning and memory. Hakim (2010) stated that these two sets of experiments reduce the number of driving factors by classifying them into distinct phases. The classification of the driving factors into four separate groups is disapproved by Hamel and Prahalad (2005). According to (Harvey, Smith and Wilkinson, 2007), instead of four factors there are 9 different factors. The nine different factors are attention, perception, emotions, senses, reasoning, thoughts, languages, assimilation and recognition (Yoram, Susan and Howard, 2007). The experiment and research studies discussed above pertain to the analysis of the establishing the factors that are considered as the driving factors of creative advertisement (Hastings, 2005). The next few paragraphs will involve the discussion of the creativity and how it influences in the way a customer perceives a product as high involvement product and low involvement products (Martin and Grbac, 2003). Jaworski, Kohli and Sahay (2000) conducted an experiment to show how the creative aspects or the driving forces of creative advertisements help to change the way a customer perceive a product. The analysis indicates that creativity has significant effect on the way a customer’s perceives a product (Whitworth and Christopher, 2008). A customer perceives a product as a high involvement product if the costs related to that product are considerably high and the customer is expecting high benefits from that product (Johnson, 2009). The experiment indicated that by decreasing the price of the product and through creativity the buyer can be influenced in perceiving the product as a low involvement product. The benefits of making the buyers perceive a high involvement product as low involvement product is that the buyers are more comfortable with the price paid and the company have to resort to less product differentiation strategy (Kover, Goldberg and James, 1995). The company incurs heavy costs in order to achieve differentiation in product. With less need to differentiate products, the costs to the company will come down significantly. An experiment conducted by (Lapierre, 2008) proved that through creative advertisement the perception of customer about a product can be changed. The experiment was conducted for a considerably long period of time. More than five different brands are chosen for the experiment. The experiment was carried out in a phased manner (Martin and Grbac, 2003). The participants were not told of the experiment. All the five brands are premiums brands, which are sold in international markets. Samples of 1500 volunteers were taken. The volunteers were shown 5 ads per day for the 5 different brands. The same ads were shown for 4 days and only two were based on creative theme (Zou and Cavusgil, 2002). The other advertisements were usual in nature with little or no hint of creativity (Levitt, 2003). The participants were asked to buy products once in a month. This activity was tracked through a period of 12 months. The most distinguishing pattern found in the experiment was easiness or conversant the customer becomes with the brand that were promoted through creative advertisements (Yip, Pierre and Michael, 2012). The time taken while choosing the products reduced gradually. The customers were asked a set of questions with each of the product brought in the first month (Maria, 2008). The same sets of questions were asked for the same brands and also to the same customers. The analysis indicated that the creative advertisement helps to improve the perception of the products (Zou and Cavusgil, 2002). Improved perception indicates that the customers are able to relate the products and brands with their own social status (Lindheim and Swartout, 2003). Apart from that, another starting feature is the improved ability reason. Most of the time while buying a high involvement product a customer shows inability to choose any products due to the lack of reasoning power (Yip, 2011). The creative advertisement helps to improve ability to reason quickly and reach a conclusion sooner than before (Mallon and Webb, 2006). Conclusion Creativity in advertisements creates the difference in the way customers perceives a low involvement product and a high involvement product. The numerous experiments indicate that creativity in advertisement influences the buying pattern of the goods. The effect of creative advertisement is more on high involvement products than the low involvement products. A customer has to factor in different kinds of variables and information while buying a high involvement product (Louis and Ronald, 2005). The involvement of the customer can be eased and the buying process can be fastened up and smoothed if the customer is made well aware of the product and the way it can be differentiated with other brands. By bringing in creativity in the advertisement the advertiser is in reality serving the same proposal although in an innovative way. The idea of doing the same and usual thing in a different way create lasting impression on the mind of the customer (Lovelock and Yip, 2011). Thus, the customer is able to associate with or recall the product for a longer period of time. A brand perception is engrained in the mind of the customer. While visiting shops or buying like products the memory starts to recall the products or the brands for a quick judgemental call. The closest memory the customer accesses are long term memory where the information regarding the brand is stored. Creativity advertising helps to create that niche space in memory through connecting with the most basic features a customer looks while making a decision (Mallon and Webb, 2006). The basic features are attention, perception, emotion, senses, reasoning, though, language as well as assimilation and recognition. Reference List Achrol, R. S., 2011. Evolution of the marketing organization: New forms for turbulent environments. Journal of Marketing, 5(5), pp. 77 – 93. Allan, B. and Michael S., 2010. Toward an emerging global culture and the effects of globalisation on obsolescing national cultures. Journal of International Management, 2(6), pp. 395–407. Andrews, J and Smith, D. C. 1996. In search of the marketing imagination: factors affecting the creativity of marketing programmes for mature products. Journal of Marketing Research, 33(2), pp.174-187. Bajaj, C., 2001. Foreign Collaborations: An innovative option. IIMB Management Review, 6(3), pp.142-145. Benner, M. and Sandstrom, U., 2012. Institutionalizing the triple helix: research funding and norms in the academic system. Research Policy, 2(9), pp. 291–301. Bonaccorsi, A. and Daraio, C., 2009. Age effects in scientific productivity — the case of the Italian national research council (cnr). Scientometrics, 5(8), pp. 49–90. Chiefele, U., 2012. Interest, learning, and motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26(3), pp. 299-323. Clark, T. and Mathur, L. L., 2011. Global myopia: globalisation theory in international business. Journal of International Management, 2(4), pp. 361–372. Cravens, D. W., 2010. Implementation strategies in the market-driven era. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2(6), pp. 237 – 241. Das, N., Quelch, J. and Swartz, G., 2000. Prepare your company for global pricing. Sloan Management Review, 42(1), pp. 61-70. David, H. C., James, C. K., and Arthur, J. C., 2011. Measuring creativity for innovation management. Measuring Creativity for Innovation Management, 6(3), pp 67-98. David, A., 2010. Bunders in international business. Journal of Marketing Science, 2(5), pp. 4(3). Flint, D. J., Woodruff, R. B. and Gardial, S. F., 2002. Exploring the phenomenon of customers’ desired value change in a business-to-business context. Journal of Marketing, 6(6), pp. 102 – 117. Flint, D. J., Woodruff, R. B. and Gardial, S. F., 2007. Customer value change in industrial marketing relationships: A call for new strategies and research. Industrial Marketing Management, 26(2), pp. 163–176. Gabriele, S. H. and Peter, A. D., 1992. The development of a measure to assess viewers' judgments of the creativity of an advertisement: a preliminary study. Advances in Consumer Research, 19(1), pp. 817-825. Garrick, G., 2011. The evolution of organisational psychology in the 21st century. Journal of Organisational Research, 36(5), pp. 3-8 Gebrekidan, D. A. and Awuah, G. B., 2003. Inter organizational cooperation: A new view of strategic alliances: The case of Swedish firms in the international market. Industrial Marketing Management, 3(1), pp. 679 – 694. George, M. Z. 1993. Creativity in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 22(2), pp. 1-33. Ger, G. 2000. Localizing in the global village: local firm competing in global markets. California Management Review, 4(5), pp. 64 – 83. Gina, G., 2013. Order from chaos: who’s who in the republics. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 1(9), pp. 16–19. Gulbrandsen, M. and Smeby, J., 2008. Industry funding and university professor’s research performance. Research Policy, 3(4), pp. 932–950. Gummesson, E., 2010. Implementation requires a relationship marketing paradigm. Journal of The Academy of Marketing Science, 2(6), pp. 242 – 249. Hakim, C., 2010. Research design: Strategies and choices in the design of social research. Investment Management Journal, 7(1), pp. 61 - 75 Hakim, C., 2010. Research design: strategies and choices in the design of social research. Investment Management Journal, 7(1), pp. 61 - 75 Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C. K., 2005. Do you really have a global strategy? Harvard Business Review, 3(9), pp. 139-49. Harvey, B., Smith S. and Wilkinson, S., 2007. Managers and Corporate Social Policy, 7(2), pp. 159-163. Hastings, D. F., 2005. Lincoln electric’s harsh lessons from international expansion. Harvard Business Review, 32(1), pp. 162 – 178. Jaworski, B., Kohli, A. K., and Sahay, A., 2000. Market-driven versus driving markets. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2(8), pp. 45 – 54. Johnson, J. L., 2009. Strategic integration in industrial distribution channels: Managing the inter-firm relationship as a strategic asset. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27, pp. 4–18. Kover, A. J., Goldberg, S. M. and James, W. L. 1995. Creativity vs effectiveness and integrating classification for advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 35(6), pp.29-40. Lapierre, J., 2008. Customer-perceived value in industrial contexts. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 1(5), pp. 122 – 140. Levitt, T., 2003. The Globalization of Markets. Harvard Business Review, 2(4), pp. 92-102. Lindheim, R. and Swartout, W., 2003. Forging a new simulation technology at the ICT. Computer, 34(1), pp. 72-79. Louis, A. and Ronald, W., 2005. Global competition and global markets: Some Empirical Results. International Business Review, 13(3), pp. 401–416. Lovelock, C.H. and Yip, G.S., 2011. Developing global strategies for service businesses. California Management Review, 38(2), pp. 64 – 86. Mallon, B. and Webb, B., 2006. Structure, causality, visibility and interaction: Propositions for evaluating engagement in narrative multimedia. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 53(2), pp. 269-287. Mallon, B. and Webb, B., 2006. Structure, causality, visibility and interaction: Propositions for evaluating engagement in narrative multimedia. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 53(2), pp. 269-287. Maria M. G. 2008. Consumers' perception of the creativity of advertisements: development of a valid measurement scale. Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 23(4), pp. 97-118. Martin, J. H. and Grbac, B., 2003. Using supply chain management to leverage a firm’s market orientation. Industrial Marketing Management, 3(20), pp. 25– 38. Mascarenhas, B., Baveja A. and Jamil, M., 2011. Dynamics of core competencies in leading multinational companies California. Management Review, 40(4), pp. 117-132. Mentzer, J. T., Flint, D. J. and Hult, G. T. M., 2001. Logistics service quality as a segment-customized process. Journal of Marketing, 65(4), pp. 82 – 104. Meyer, J., 2011. Evaluating action research. Age and Ageing, 29(2), pp. 8-10. Miles, M., 2006. Qualitative data as an attractive nuisance: the problem of analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2(4), pp. 590-601. Mintzberg, H. and Waters, J. A., 2009. Of strategies, deliberate & emergent. In Strategic Management Journal, 6(1), pp. 258-272. Morgan, G. and Linda, S., 2005. The case for qualitative research. Academy of Management Review, 4(5), pp. 491-500. Noordeweir, T. G., John, G. and Nevin, J. R., 2006. Performance outcomes of purchasing arrangements in industrial buyer – vendor relationships. Journal of Marketing, 5(4), pp. 80 – 93. Parasuraman, A., 2009. Reflections on gaining competitive advantage through customer value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 5(9), pp. 154– 161. Piercy, N. F., 2011. Marketing implementation: The implications of marketing paradigm weakness for the strategy execution process. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2(6), pp. 222 – 237. Punkaj, G., 2006. Semi globalisation and international business strategy. Journal of International Business, 34(1), pp. 139–152. Robert E. S. and Xiaojing, Y., 2004. Toward a general theory of creativity in advertising: examining the role of divergence. Marketing Theory, 4(1), pp. 31-58. Robert J. S., James, C. K. and Jean, E., P., 2004. A propulsion model of creative leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(3). pp. 145-153. Samiee, S. and Roth, K., 2003.The influence of global marketing standardization on performance. Journal of Marketing, 5(6), pp. 1-17. Scott, K., Sheila, L. S. and Edward, A. R., 2003. What is creative to whom and why perceptions in advertising agency. Journal of Advertising Research, 43(1), pp. 96-110. Simmonds, K. 2005. Global strategy: achieving the geocentric ideal. International Marketing Review, 2(9), pp. 8-17. Slater, S. F., 2005. Developing a customer value-based theory of the firm. Journal of the Academy Of Marketing Science, 5(3), pp. 162 – 167. Smith, R. E., Jiemiao, C. and Xiaojing, Y., 2008. The impact of advertising creativity on hierarchy of effects. Journals of Advertising, 37(4), pp. 47-61. Swee, H. A. and Sharon, Y. M. L, 2000. Exploring the dimensions of ad creativity. Psychology & Marketing, 17(10), pp. 835-854. Swee, H. A., Yih, H. L. and Siew, M. L., 2007. The ad creativity cube: conceptualization and initial validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(2). pp. 220-232. Varadarajan, P. R. and Jayachandran, S., 2003. Marketing strategy: an assessment of the state of the field and outlook. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2(7), pp. 120 – 143. While, G. E., 1972. Creativity: The x factor in advertising theory. Journal of Advertising, 1(1), pp. 28. Whitworth, A. and Christopher, C., 2008. Appraisal of the yonki dam hydroelectric project. Project Appraisal, 5(3), pp. 13-20. Woodruff, R. B., 2002. Customer value: The next source for competitive advantage. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2(5), pp. 139 – 153. Yip, G. S., Pierre, M. L. and Michael,, Y. Y., 2012. How to take your company to the global market Columbia. Journal of World Business, 7(8), pp. 37-47. Yip, G.S., 2011. Global strategy in a world of nations. Sloan Management Review. Autumn, 3(2), pp. 29-41. Yoram, W., Susan, P. D. and Howard, V. P., 2007. Guidelines for developing international marketing strategy. Journal of Marketing, 7(3), pp. 14–23. Zou, S. and Cavusgil, S.T., 2002. Global strategy: a review and an integrated conceptual framework. European Journal of Marketing, 30(1), pp. 52-69. Read More