A study of the antecedents of slogan liking

A study of the antecedents of slogan liking
of 8
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
  A study of the antecedents of slogan liking Mayukh Dass a, ⁎ ,1 , Chiranjeev Kohli b,2 , Piyush Kumar c,3 , Sunil Thomas b,4 a Rawls College of Business, Texas Tech University, MS 2101, Lubbock, TX, United States b Mihaylo College of Business and Economics, California State University, P.O. Box 6848, Fullerton, CA 92834-6848, United States c Terry College of Business, University of Georgia, 130 Brooks Hall, Athens, GA, United States a b s t r a c ta r t i c l e i n f o  Article history: Received 9 January 2014Received in revised form 6 May 2014Accepted 9 May 2014Available online xxxx Keywords: SloganBrandAdvertisingLikeabilityAffectBilinear model Asloganisanintegralcomponentofabrand'sadvertisingplatformthathelpsshapeitsidentityandde fi neitspo-sitioning. While prior literature has focused on the recall of slogans, knowledge regarding why consumers likesomeslogansmorethanothersisstilllimited.Thispaperusesdatafromalarge fi eldstudytoexplorethekeyfac-tors that determine the likeability of slogans. It uses a bilinear mixed model to assess the relative importance of slogancharacteristics,mediaexpenditure,andrespondentcharacteristicsasantecedentsofsloganlikeability.The fi ndings suggest that the liking for a slogan may be unrelated to media expenditure, and driven largely by theclarityofthemessage,theexpositionofthebene fi ts,rhymes,andcreativity.Further,insharpcontrasttoindustrypractice and conventional belief, the study  fi nds that jingles or brevity have no systematic effects on thelikeability of slogans.© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Slogans are short, memorable phrases that are often used to signoff onadvertisements.Theycharacterizealargeproportionofbrandadver-tising and are designed to attract consumer attention, crystallize brandpositioning, increase advertising memorability, and improve brandaf  fi nity (Keller, 1993). Effective slogans also contribute to the market value of   fi rms (Mathur & Mathur, 1995), and sustain them throughadvertising campaigns, product cycles, and business cycles (Kohli,Leuthesser, & Suri, 2007). Therefore, it is not surprising that  fi rmsoften spend millions of dollars in slogan development and promotion(Edwards, 2011). Yet, while some, such as DeBeers' 1938 slogan,  “ ADiamond is Forever, ”  or Allstate Insurance Company's 1956 slogan, “ You're in Good Hands with Allstate, ”  endure the test of time, others,such as Dodge's 1954 slogan,  “ Elegance in Action, ”  or Pepsi's,  “ AnyWeather is Pepsi Weather, ”  do not. Such wide variation in their effec-tiveness or longevity raises questions about what makes customerslike some slogans and not others.Theliteratureonslogans,thoughlimited,hasbroadlyfocusedonex-aminingtherelationshipbetweenslogansandbrandequity,delineatingslogan characteristics, and exploring the antecedents of slogan recall.For example, Dahlén and Rosengren (2005) fi nd that consumers evalu-ate brands with strong slogans more favorably, which increases brandequity. Boush (1993)  fi nds that slogans help prime attributes that areincluded in it, and improve the perceptions of brands that share theseattributes.PryorandBrodie(1998)replicatethese fi ndingsandprovidefurther evidence that slogans help support brand image. Petty,Cacioppo, and Schumann (1983)  fi nd that advertising recall can beenhanced by increasing consumers' cognitive involvement via moder-ately complicated slogans rather than necessarily  “ keeping it simple. ” Lamons (1997) suggests that a slogan is often the mechanism forsigning off on advertisements and plays a central role in a brand'smarketing strategy.Taken together, the literature suggests that slogans assist in adver-tising and brand recall, transfer positive affect to the brand, and helppromote attributes that can strengthen brand image. However, whilepriorresearchhasexploredthefactorsthatleadtoahigherrecallofslo-gans(Kohli,Thomas,&Suri,2013),andtheselectivepromotionofattri-butes (Boush, 1993), there is virtually no research on what makes sloganslikeable.Asaresult,whileitisknownthatthelikingforaslogantransfers over to the brand, there is inadequate guidance for whatmakes a slogan likeable to begin with. This paper addresses this issue,and attempts to identify characteristics of slogans that increase theirlikeability.Therestofthepaperispresentedasfollows.ThenextSectionreviewsthe literature on slogans, followed by a description of the data, and the  Journal of Business Research xxx (2014) xxx – xxx ⁎  Corresponding author. Tel.: + 806 834 1924; fax: + 806 834 2199. E-mail addresses: (M. Dass), (C. Kohli), (P. Kumar), (S. Thomas). 1 All authors have contributed equally. The authors are listed in alphabetical order. 2 Tel.: +1 657 278 3796. 3 Tel.: +1 706 542 2123; fax: +1 706 542 7177. 4 Tel.: +1 657 278 3646.  JBR-08091; No of Pages 8© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect  Journal of Business Research Pleasecitethisarticleas:Dass,M.,etal.,Astudyoftheantecedentsofsloganliking,  JournalofBusinessResearch (2014), j.jbusres.2014.05.004  model used to estimate the proposed effects. Thereafter, the key  fi nd-ings are presented from the estimation of the model, and the papercloses with their managerial implications and an outline for future re-search in the area. 2. The likeability of slogans Brands are valuable corporate assets that are often worth billions of dollars, and constitute a large component of the total value of many fi rms (Crimmins, 2000). Keller (1993) suggests that there are three in- tegral elements of a brand's identity — name, logo, and slogan. Thebrand name is the anchor and often one of the foundations of a brand'sidentity.Severalstudiessuggestthatthespellingofbrandnamesaffectstheirrecall(Luna,2013),theirnamingstructureaffectstheevaluationof extensions (Sood & Keller, 2012), and their alphanumeric characteris- tics affect customer preferences (Gunasti & Ross, 2010). However, be- cause the name typically comprises of one or a few words, it oftenfaces limitations in terms of being able to fully explain the meaning of a brand. Further, because a brand name is enduring, it cannot be easilyadjusted to accommodate changes in the marketplace or in the brand'spositioning.Alogoisthesecondcomponentofabrand'sidentityand,becauseof its universal graphics language, can often transcend geographicalboundaries andlanguagebarriers.Extant researchon logos hasfocusedon the relationships among logo design, information processing, andbrand preference (e.g., Janiszewski & Meyvis, 2001). Park, Eisingerich, Pol, and Park (2013) suggest that logos also in fl uence brand commit-ment and  fi rm performance. However, much like the brand's name, itslogo is also enduring, open to subjective interpretation, and not easilyadjustable.Asaresult,sloganstendtoshouldermuchoftheburdenofarticulat-ing a brand's long-term positioning or the medium-term changes to it.Therefore, it is not surprising that most brands today use slogans intheir communication with their multiple stakeholders, including cus-tomers, employees, and even investors (e.g., Mathur & Mathur, 1995). In this endeavor, brand managers tend to focus on making slogansmemorable, likeable, and meaningful (Cui, Hu, & Grif  fi th, 2014). How-ever,becausesloganrecallinitselfmaynotbeenoughtodrivebrandat-titudes(Kohlietal.,2013),itisalsoimportanttounderstandthedrivers of consumers' affective responses to slogans. The hierarchy of effectsmodel would suggest that a positive affective response to a slogan willlikely lead to higher preference, conviction, and purchase likelihoodfor thebrand (Smith,Chen,& Yang, 2008).A similarlinkbetween mes-sage likeability and brand preference has also been documented in theadvertising and brand communication literature (e.g. Vakratsas &Ambler, 1999). However, a review of the academic literature and thetrade press, as well as discussions with practicing brand managers andadvertising professionals, suggests that the current understanding of what really makes slogans likeable is rather super fi cial. Consequently,the current practice for developing slogans is largely based onunveri fi edbeliefsorheuristics,suchas “ slogansshouldbeshort,catchy,and have a jingle. ”  However, it is unclear whether such simplistic anduniversal prescriptions make slogans more likeable.  2.1. Factors affecting the likeability of slogans A slogan is a message from a brand to a current or a potential cus-tomerandiscontainedwithinalargerpieceofadvertising.Fromacom-munications perspective, the response to a message sent from a sourceis a function of the content, the medium, and the receiver's personalcharacteristics(Stern,1994).Therefore,broadlyspeaking,thelikeability of a slogan is expected to be a function of its own characteristics andthose of its recipients. Further, because the frequency with which mes-sages are repeated tends to have an impact on the generated affect(Keiser, 1975), the media expenditure supporting a brand's advertisingis expected to positively affect the likeability of slogans.  2.1.1. Slogan characteristics Message clarity.  The purpose of a slogan is to deliver a clear andfocused message to consumers to help articulate the bene fi ts providedby the brand and generate positive af  fi nity for it. Prior research(Eighmey & McCord, 1998) suggests that several factors, combined under the umbrella of clarity of purpose, lead to a better interpretationof the information received. Communications researchalso fi nds a pos-itive relationship between message clarity and liking for the messagesponsor (e.g., Sidelinger & McCroskey, 1997). Therefore, the clarity of the message is expected to have a positive effect on the liking for a slo-gan as well.  fi t. Sloganscanbeeffectivevehiclesforbrandpo-sitioning. Many iconic slogans such as Chevy Blazer's  “ Like a Rock ”  andMorton Salt's  “ When it rains, it pours ”  have helped shape the percep-tions of the respective brands in the minds of the consumers. In thisregard,bene fi t-basedpositioninghassomeadvantagesoverotherposi-tioning methods. It tends to draw a more favorable response from con-sumers than feature-based positioning (Fuchs & Diamantopoulos,2010), and also generates a stronger positive affect (e.g., Mahajan andWind, 2002). Therefore, slogans which include a bene fi t is expected tobe more liked than those that do not. Creativity.  One of the key criteria that determines advertisingcreativity is divergence or the extent to which an advertisement isnovelordifferent(Smithetal.,2008).Creativeadvertisementsgenerate favorable emotional responses and tend to be likeable (Ang & Low,2000;Goldenberg,Mazursky,&Solomon,1999).Slogansarealsolinkedwith creativity (Sternberg & Lubart, 1999) because the srcinality of messages is known to play a signi fi cant role in increasing recognition(Pick, Sweeney, & Clay, 1991), motivating information processing(Smith, Mackenzie, Yang, Buchholz, & Darley, 2007), and improvingpreference (Pieters, Warlop, & Wedel, 2002). Therefore, this study hy-pothesizes that creativity will have a positive effect on slogan liking. Brand andproductappropriateness. Theroleof  fi torappropriate-nesshasbeenstudiedextensivelyinthemarketingliterature.Forexam-ple, brand extensions are viewed more favorably if the brand is a good fi t with the extension category (Keller, 1990). Within the brand com- munications literature, incongruence between the message and thebrand is known to increase consumers' cognitive load, force them togenerate counter-arguments against the message, and view the brandless positively (Slater & Rouner, 2002). Therefore, a slogan that is viewed as appropriate for its brand is expected to be better liked thanone that is not. For similar reasons, a slogan that is viewed as appropri-ate for its productcategorywillalsobebetter liked thanonethatis not. Rhymes and music.  Slogans are characterized not only by themessage they carry but also by the modality of the delivery. Some of themostwidely-usedexecutiondevicesthatin fl uencemodalityincluderhymes (Szpunar, Schellenberg, & Pliner, 2004) and music or jingles(Stewart, 1998; Yalch, 1991). The widespread use of rhymes in slogans is not surprising because artful and decorative language tends to in-crease elaboration and liking (Toncar & Munch, 2001). More broadly,stylistic elements such as rhyme, antithesis, metaphor, and pun havebeen shown to generate positive attitudes toward an advertisement(McQuarrie & Mick, 1999).The music used in advertising serves as a mnemonic, which makesaudiences more receptive to the brand message by creating a more fa-vorablestateofmind(Hecker,1984).Musicalsoenhancesaglobalfeel- ing of liking (MacInnis & Park, 1991), especially if it  fi ts well with themessage.Interestingly,inadditiontoincreasingconsumers'affectivere-sponse, music also increases the effectiveness of advertising through acognitive route, by enhancing the information processing of the brandmessage (MacInnis & Park, 1991). As a result, music indirectly helps 2  M. Dass et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2014) xxx –  xxx Pleasecitethisarticleas:Dass,M.,etal.,Astudyoftheantecedentsofsloganliking,  JournalofBusinessResearch (2014), j.jbusres.2014.05.004  withadvertisingrecallaswell,especiallywhennoothersupportivecuesare available (Yalch, 1991). However, the evidence in support of music's positive effect onadvertising memorability and likeability is somewhat mixed (Stout,Leckenby, & Hecker, 1990). While several researchers  fi nd that musicenhances the memorability of advertising (e.g., Stewart & Furse,1985), others do not  fi nd support for this effect (e.g., Galizio &Hendrick, 1972). The absence of a universal effect of music in advertis-ing can be at least partially explained by noting that messages in a mu-sical format are more likely to be processed phonetically rather thansemantically. Therefore, it may be dif  fi cult for individuals to retrievethe textual content of messages communicated with music when themusic itself is absent (Galizio & Hendrick, 1972). However, on balance, bothjinglesandrhymesareexpectedtohaveapositiveeffectonsloganlikeability. Brand name inclusion.  Slogans are purposeful messages that canprime speci fi c attributes and associate it with a brand (Boush, 1993). However, more recent research (Laran, Dalton, & Andrade, 2011) sug-geststhatslogansmaysometimeshaveareverseprimingeffectbecauseconsumers may interpret them as too persuasive and respondadverse-ly. By implication, slogans that include the brand name are more likelyto be interpreted as overly persuasive relative to those that do not.Therefore, this study expects that the inclusion of the brand name inthe slogan will reduce its likeability. Length.  The cognitive cost model (Todd & Benbasat, 1992) sug- gests that consumers have limited cognitive abilities, which affectstheirperformanceindecision-makingtasksaswellastheiraffectivere-sponses to stimuli. Asa result, if thecognitiveloadnecessary to processinformation increases, the liking toward the source of the informationtends to decline (Payne, 1982). Within this context, the length of theslogan is expected to contribute to its overall complexity and will ad-versely in fl uence its likeability. Therefore, shorter slogans will be likedmore than longer ones.  2.1.2. Exposure in media Extant marketing literature suggests that multiple exposures tostimuli tend to have a positive effect on consumer liking (Cox & Cox,2002; Janiszewski, 1993). For example, Cox and Cox (1988)  fi nd thatconsumers' evaluation of complex advertisements in particular in-creases with repeated exposure. Stang and O'Connell (1974) showthat learning through numerous exposures leads to satisfaction and in-creases liking. More generally, researchon the exposure effect suggeststhat repeated exposure tends to increase the liking for a stimulusthrough increased perceptual and conceptual  fl uency ( Janiszewski &Meyvis, 2001). Therefore, this study hypothesizes that an increase inthe exposure to slogans will increase their likeability.Thedegreeofexposurewillbeafunctionofthedurationoverwhicha slogan lasts and the frequency of exposure within that time frame.This suggests that the age of a slogan can serve as a proxy for the  fi rstcomponent.Withregardtothesecond,theliteraturepointstoapositivelinear relationship between advertising expenditure and exposure(Snyder, Milici, Slater, Sun, & Strizhakova, 2006). An earlier study(Keiser, 1975), using a large multistage sample, also fi nds a high corre-lation between brand and slogan awareness and the extent of advertis-ing in mass media. Combining these with the  “ mere exposure ”  effect(Batra & Ray, 1986), it is hypothesized that a slogan's age and the advertising expenditure will have a positive effect on slogan liking.  2.1.3. Respondent characteristics Recent researchsuggests that men and women processinformationdifferently (Hill & Motes, 1995), with women requiring more informa- tion while making decisions (e.g., Laroche, Saad, Cleveland, & Browne,2000).Severalstudiesalso fi ndgenderdifferencesinshoppingbehavior(Fischer & Arnold, 1994) and consumer judgment (Dubé & Morgan, 1996). These factors, in turn, tend to lead to lower levels of satisfactionamong women than among men. By way of analogy, men are expectedto like slogans more than women would.Extantliteraturehasalsodocumentedbothpositiveandnegativeef-fects of age on the amount of information processing (Hill & Motes,1995). The social psychology literature suggests that older adults takelonger to process information than younger ones (e.g., Mata, Schooler,& Rieskamp, 2007). Similarly, the cognitive processing literature sug-geststhatmentalabilities(Gazzaley&D'Esposito,2007)andattentionalcapabilities (Zacks & Hasher, 1997) decline with age. Therefore, olderindividuals are more likely to experience cognitive overload while pro-cessing the messages contained in slogans and are therefore likely tohave a weaker affective response toward them.Finally, Shavitt, Lowrey, and Haefner (1998)  fi nd that people withlow income tend to have more favorable attitudes toward advertisingin general, as well as toward advertising content. Although, slogansare structurally different from advertisements, they are still similar inthat both are marketing messages intended to support brands. There-fore, this study hypothesizes that income will have a negative effecton slogan liking as well. 3. Methodology   3.1. Data Past research on slogans, barring some exceptions (e.g., Mathur &Mathur, 1995), has generally involved testing a limited number of slo-gans in laboratory settings with student samples. In order to increasethe external validity of this research, this study (1) uses actual brandslogans rather than fi ctitious ones, (2) tests an extensive list of slogansrather than a limited number, and (3) investigates the likeability of thesesloganswithreal-worldrespondentsratherthanstudentsubjectsin a laboratory. Because a study along these lines on slogans has notbeen done in the past, a unique research design is adopted and data iscollected in two phases. The purpose of the  fi rst phase was to reducethelargeuniverseofsloganstothosethatwereatleastsomewhatfamil-iartothemarket.Thisstagewasimportantbecauselikingisconditionalonfamiliarityandtherefore,completelyunknownsloganswereexclud-ed from this study, which respondents will be unable to evaluatemeaningfully. At the end of the  fi rst phase, a database of 150 familiarnational slogans was generated from a survey of 220 respondents.Sub-sequently, in the second phase, the antecedents of the likeability of theselected slogans from Phase 1 are investigated using a sample of 595respondents.Aninterceptmethodusingasurveyinstrumentwasimplementedtocollect the data for both phases. The literature shows that intercept in-terviews are appropriate for this purpose, and have signi fi cant advan-tages, including better response quality, over other methods such astelephoneinterviews(Bush &Hair, 1985). Thisdatacollectionmethod-ologyhaspreviouslybeenusedtoinvestigatediverseissuesinconsum-er research including retailer – consumer relationships and decision-making (e.g., Inman, Winer, & Ferraro, 2009).  3.1.1. Phase 1 In Phase 1,anextensive listof actualbrandsloganswascreated thatwould be tested for likeability in Phase 2. Speci fi cally, a superset of familiar national slogans was generated through intercept interviewswith customers. Each interviewer underwent a training session toreduce errors in data collection and to ensure uniformity in the admin-istration of the surveys. The interviews were conducted with respon-dents at shopping malls, stores, and multiplexes in and around a largeand diverse metropolitan area within the United States. A total of 220respondents participated in this survey. The average age of the respon-dents was 42 years and 52% of them were men. Each respondent wasasked to list slogans that he or she could recall. The interviewer pro-vided clari fi cations in case a respondent was confused about what a 3 M. Dass et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2014) xxx –  xxx Pleasecitethisarticleas:Dass,M.,etal.,Astudyoftheantecedentsofsloganliking,  JournalofBusinessResearch (2014), j.jbusres.2014.05.004  slogan meant or required any other assistance. However, the inter-viewer did not use any slogan as an example during the clari fi cationprocess.AttheendofPhase1,theslogansweresortedbasedonthefrequen-cyofrecall.Thislististhenshortenedbyremovingslogansthatmetthefollowing criteria:1. The slogan was not recalled by at least two respondents;2. The slogan was not identi fi able even after an extensive online andof  fl ine search;3. The slogan was from a local business, such as a car dealership.The  fi rst restriction resulted in a shortlist of 241 slogans. Furtherelimination, based on the remaining two criteria resulted in a set of 150 slogans. The  fi nal list included brand slogans from a wide varietyof industries including cars, cosmetics, breakfast cereals,laundry deter-gents,  fi nancial services, and fast food.  3.1.2. Phase 2 The objective of Phase 2 wasto examinetheimpact of thehypothe-sized factors on thelikingof slogans.To accomplish this,data is collect-edonlikinganditslikelydriversforthe150slogansgeneratedinPhase1.Giventhelargenumberofsloganstobetested,aswellasthenumberof antecedent variables of slogan liking, a research design is adoptedthat made the task manageable and reduced respondent fatigue. Thestudy randomly assigned the 150 slogans to 30 versions of the surveyinstrument.Eachversioncontained fi vedifferentsloganswhich,barringa few exceptions, belonged to  fi ve different product categories. Thesurvey items measured slogan liking, as well as independent vari-ables, including clarity of message, simplicity of the slogan, and soon. Three marketing experts served as independent judges and eval-uatedtheitemsusedtomeasurethevariables.Wheremultiple itemswere used, the reliability of the scales was assessed, and then an av-erage score of the items was taken to create an overall score for thescale.Much like in Phase 1, intercept interviews were used in Phase 2.Interviewers, who were given detailed instructions on administeringthe surveys, contacted respondents in similar locations within thesame metropolitan area as in Phase 1. A total of 595 respondents com-pleted the survey (average age: 37 years, 53% men). In other words,eachversionofthesurvey,containingasetof  fi veslogans,wascomplet-ed by approximately 20 respondents. Brand names associated with therespectivesloganswerenotprovidedtotherespondents,asthesloganswereevaluatedindependently,andnotmakebrandnamesanartifactof the study. Separately, the secondary data were collected on some pre-dictor variables, including the brand's advertising budget for the latestyear and the age of slogan.  3.2. Measures The liking for a slogan is measured using a two-item, 7-point scalethatincluded “ Overallhowmuchdoyoulikethisslogan? ” and “ Overall,how favorable is your impression of this slogan? ”  (Cronbach's alpha:0.90). Message clarity is measured using a three-item, 7-point scalethat included  “ The message in this slogan is very clear, ” “ This sloganhas a simple structure, ”  and  “ This slogan is dif  fi cult to follow ”  (reversecoded), (Cronbach's alpha: 0.72). For creativity of the slogan, a 7-pointitem is used,  “ This slogan is very creative. ”  The inclusion of bene fi t inthe slogan was also measured using a single, 7-point item,  “ This sloganstates the bene fi t(s) of the product/service. ” The appropriatenessof thesloganfor thebrand is measured using atwo-item,7-pointscalethatincluded “ Thissloganisappropriateforthebrand ”  and  “ This slogan is consistent with the brand ”  (correlation:0.78). For the relevance of the slogan to the product category, a 7-point item is used,  “ This slogan is relevant to the product category. ” The length of the slogan was measured using the actual number of words used in it. The presence of a rhyme was coded as a 0 – 1 dummyvariable. The inclusion of the brand name within the slogan and thepresence of a jingle were similarly coded as 0 – 1 dummy variables. Thepresence of jingles was further veri fi ed through an extensive onlinesearch on the company websites, YouTube, and search engines. Brandfamiliarity was computed as the percentage of respondents exposedto a slogan who correctly identi fi ed its brand.Theageofthesloganwasestablishedusingdatacompiledfromsev-eral sources including company annual reports and websites, industryreports, LexisNexis, and internet search engines, and the earliest dateassociated with the slogan was assigned to it. The brand's annualadvertising budget for the latest year was used as a proxy measure formedia expenditure supporting the slogan. These data were compiledfrom multiple sources, including the Superbrands report compiled byBrandweek,LexisNexis,businessmagazines,pressreleases,andcompa-ny websites. Care was taken to make sure that the data re fl ected thespeci fi c brand under consideration. For example, for FedEx, the budgetfor its Kinko's division was not included in Fedex brand's advertisingbudget.  3.3. Bilinear mixed model of slogan liking  There aretwo big challenges with analyzingthedataon slogans,in-cluding heterogeneity and unobserved variable bias. Because each slo-gan is inherently unique, they are collectively heterogeneous in termsof their several characteristics, such as length, many of which may notbe easy to identify or de fi ne. The inability to do so may result in an un-observed variable bias in the parameter estimates for the effects of thehypothesized observed factors. The potential for such a bias is greaterin this study because it involves real customers and numerous slogansrather than in a laboratory setting where a relatively homogeneous setof participants evaluate just a few slogans. Therefore, this study uses afairly new type of a bilinear mixed model (Hoff, 2005) to estimate the strength of the hypothesized relationships between slogan liking andits antecedents. This class of models is analytically  fl exible and usefulfor controlling the dependence among the independent variables inthe data (Marasinghe & Johnson, 1982), and for accounting for unob- served variables.The modeling approach assumes that each slogan is located in la-tent space based on how much it is liked by customers. Those thathave similar levels of liking are located close to each other andthose that differ in the level of liking are located far apart. The ap-proachfurtherassumesthatthespeci fi clocationofeachsloganisde-termined by a function of the antecedents of liking, including slogancharacteristics, media expenditure, individual customer differences,and unobserved effects.Based on these assumptions, a set of slogans  S  ∈ { s 1 ,  s 2 , … s n } isconsidered and a general model for their liking is formulated asfollows: Liking  ð Þ s  ¼  β  1  CM  ð Þ s  þ β  2  BEN  ð Þ s  þ β  3  CR ð Þ s  þ β  4  BA ð Þ s  þ β  5  PA ð Þ s þ β  6  JIN  ð Þ s  þ β  7  RHY  ð Þ s  þ β  8  BNI  ð Þ s  þ β  9  SLen ð Þ s  þ β  10  BFAM  ð Þ s þ β  11  SAge ð Þ s  þ β  12  SAd$  ð Þ s  þ β  13  Gen ð Þ s  þ β  14  Age ð Þ s þ β  15  Income ð Þ s  þ ε  s ð 1 Þ where CM  = MessageClarity, BEN  = Bene fi tIncluded,  CR = Creativity, BA  = Brand Appropriateness,  PA  = Product Appropriateness,  JIN   = Jingle,  RHY   = Rhyme,  BNI   = Brand Name Included,  SLen  = SloganLength,  BFAM   = Brand Familiarity,  SAge  = Age of the slogan,  SAd $ =Annual Advertising Budget of the Brand,  Gen  = Gender,  Age  = Age, Income  = Income, and ε   = Error term.Therandomeffectsofindividualslogans, a s ,areincludedintheerrorterm in Eq. (1). To capture the effects of heterogeneity and unobservedvariables, a latent vector  z  s  is further added in the model. After 4  M. Dass et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2014) xxx –  xxx Pleasecitethisarticleas:Dass,M.,etal.,Astudyoftheantecedentsofsloganliking,  JournalofBusinessResearch (2014), j.jbusres.2014.05.004  accountingforthesetwoeffects,theerrorstructureisexpandedandre-parameterized Eq. (1) as: Liking  ð Þ s  ¼  β  1  CM  ð Þ s  þ β  2  BEN  ð Þ s  þ β  3  CR ð Þ s  þ β  4  BA ð Þ s  þ β  5  PA ð Þ s þ β  6  JIN  ð Þ s  þ β  7  RHY  ð Þ s  þ β  8  BNI  ð Þ s  þ β  9  SLen ð Þ s  þ β  10  BFAM  ð Þ s þ β  11  SAge ð Þ s  þ β  12  SAd$  ð Þ s  þ β  13  Gen ð Þ s  þ β  14  Age ð Þ s þ β  15  Income ð Þ s  þ  a s  þ  z  s  þ γ  s ð 2 Þ where a s = Randomeffectsofslogans,  z  s = Latentvector, γ  s = Residualerror of the model.The above model (Eq. (2)) is estimated using a Bayesian process.Since the modeling approach is based on a Bayesian process, a Markovchain Monte Carlo algorithm is the best option for its estimation (Hoff,2005). Speci fi cally, because direct sampling is dif  fi cult for the latentcomponent of the equation, Gibbs sampling is used and, in the process,a Markov chain is constructed with the required parameters { β  1 ,  β  2 , … , β  14 , Σ ab ,  Z  , σ   z  2 , Σ γ  } andsampledfrom thetargeted posterior distribution  p ( β  1 ,  β  2 , … ,  β  14 ,  Σ ab ,  Z  ,  σ   z  2 ,  Σ γ  | Y  ). The chain for 200,000 iterations is runfor each estimation using the data from Phase 2. The outputs from the fi rst 20,000 iterations were considered burn-ins and were not consid-eredintheanalysis.Theposteriormeansandquantile-based95%con fi -dence intervals are then examined for the estimates.  3.4. Benchmark model For purposes of comparison, a benchmark model belonging to thesame family of mixed, linear models that does not control for variableinter-dependence and unobserved factors is estimated. The dependentvariableisthelikingforaslogan,andtheindependentvariablecovariatestructure follows Eq. (2) as follows: Liking  ð Þ s  ¼  β  0  þ β  1  CM  ð Þ s  þ β  2  BEN  ð Þ s  þ β  3  CR ð Þ s  þ β  4  BA ð Þ s  þ β  5  PA ð Þ s þ β  6  JIN  ð Þ s  þ β  7  RHY  ð Þ s  þ β  8  BNI  ð Þ s  þ β  9  SLen ð Þ s  þ β  10  BFAM  ð Þ s þ β  11  SAge ð Þ s  þ β  12  SAd$  ð Þ s  þ β  13  Gen ð Þ s  þ β  14  Age ð Þ s þ β  15  Income ð Þ s  þ ε  : ð 3 Þ The maximum likelihood approach is used to estimate Eq. (3). 4. Results AdescriptionofthedataispresentedinTable1.Theresultsfromtheestimation of the proposed model are presented in Table 2. Resultsshowthatseveralslogancharacteristicsthataretraditionallyassociatedwith slogan design did not have a signi fi cant effect on their likeability.Speci fi cally, neither the inclusion of jingles, nor reducing their lengthhad a systematic effect on the likeability of slogans. More surprisingly,theappropriatenessofthesloganforthebranddidnotin fl uencewheth-er the slogan itself was liked or not. On the other hand, much like wehad predicted, the inclusion of the brand name in the slogan adverselyaffected its overall likeability ( β   = − 0.046).The results suggest that the likeability of slogans may have somecognitive underpinnings. For example, message clarity ( β   = 0.607),the inclusion of a bene fi t ( β   = 0.065), and the appropriateness of thesloganfortheproductcategory( β  = 0.012),hadapositiveeffectonlik-ing. In other words, slogans that were easy to comprehend and relatedto products tended to be liked more. However, creativity also played arole and had a strong effect on the likeability of slogans ( β   = 0.43)much as rhymes did ( β   = 0. 071). On the other hand, the intensity of a slogan's exposure in media or its age did not affect its likeability.Three demographic variables, including, gender, age, and income, af-fected the likeability of slogans. Women tended to like slogans morethanmendid( β  = 0.075).Youngerrespondentsalsotendedtolikeslo-gansmorethanolderones( β  = − 0.149).Finally,incomehadapositiveeffect ( β   = 0.089) on likeability.Some of these  fi ndings provide a caveat to what is traditionally be-lievedorhasbeenshownintheextantliteratureonadvertising.Forex-ample,whiletheappropriatenessofthesloganfortheproductcategorydid matter, its appropriateness for the brand and use of jingles had no  Table 1 Data description.Mean Std. Dev Min. Max. N Slogan Characteristics Slogan Liking 4.691 1.844 1.00 7.00Message Clarity 5.296 1.436 1.00 7.00Bene fi t 4.177 2.053 1.00 7.00Creativity 4.315 1.900 1.00 7.00Brand Appropriate 5.526 1.414 1.00 7.00Product Appropriate 4.801 1.845 1.00 7.00Log (slogan length) 1.510 0.491 0 2.63 Jingle 46 (30.67%)Rhyme 26 (17.33%)Brand Name Included 64 (42.67%) Exposure in Media Log (Age of Slogan) 2.837 1.080 0 4.584Log (Advertising Budget) $11.25 1.21 $9.33 $14.93Demographics FrequencyGender:Male 1549 (53.07%)Female 1370 (46.93%)Age:Below 21 yrs 325 (11.13%)21 to 30 yrs 1164 (39.88%)31 to 40 yrs 530 (18.16%)41 to 50 yrs 405 (13.87%)51 to 60 yrs 300 (10.28%)61+ yrs 195 (6.68%)Income: b $30,000 829 (29.05%)$30,000 to $59,999 890 (31.18%)$60,000 to $89,999 475 (16.64%)$90,000 to 119,999 240 (8.41%)$120,000 to $150,000 165 (5.78%)$150,000+ 255 (8.93%)  Table 2 Results of bilinear model for the liking for slogans.Coef  fi cient (Std. Error) Fixed Effects Intercept  − 0.013 (0.025) Slogan characteristics Message Clarity 0.607 (0.008) ⁎ Bene fi t 0.065 (0.005) ⁎ Creativity 0.430 (0.006) ⁎ Brand Appropriate 0.0001 (0.0001)Product Appropriate 0.012 (0.006) ⁎  Jingle  − 0.005 (0.006)Rhyme 0.071 (0.009) ⁎ Brand Name Included  − 0.046 (0.007) ⁎ Slogan Length 0.002 (0.007)Brand Familiarity 0.001 (0.001) Exposure in Media Log (Age of Slogan) 0.001 (0.001)Log (Advertising Budget) 0.0001 (0.0001)  Audience Characteristics Gender (Male = 1; Female = 2) 0.075 (0.020) ⁎ Age  − 0.149 (0.010) ⁎ Income 0.089 (0.009) ⁎ Random Effects  Jingle  − 0.002 (0.039)Rhyme  − 0.011 (0.049)Brand Name Included  − 0.010 (0.036) ⁎  Signi fi cant at 95% CI, dependent variable = Liking for the slogan.5 M. Dass et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2014) xxx –  xxx Pleasecitethisarticleas:Dass,M.,etal.,Astudyoftheantecedentsofsloganliking,  JournalofBusinessResearch (2014), j.jbusres.2014.05.004
Similar documents
View more...
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks