Recall of Radio Advertising in Low and High Advertising Clutter Formats

Transcription

1 Recall of Radio Advertising in Low and High Advertising Clutter Formats Erica Riebe and John Dawes Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for Marketing Science, University of South Australia GOP Box 2471 Adelaide, South Australia 5001 Australia address: Keywords: Advertising recall, clutter, placement. International Journal of Advertising vol 25, 1, 2006 pp Abstract This study investigates the relationship between radio advertising clutter and advertising recall using the Australian radio market as a test case. The term clutter is defined here as a greater number of advertisements in a given time period. The study used an experimental design in which certain groups of participants were exposed to a radio format with high advertising clutter, while others were exposed to a low-clutter format. The low-clutter respondents recalled as many ads on average as the high-clutter respondents. Since the low-clutter respondents were exposed to far fewer ads, the proportion of ads recalled by the low-clutter respondents was more than double that of the high-clutter respondents, and this effect was consistent across multiple recall measures. That is, the low-clutter participants were twice as likely to recall a particular advertisement among those ads they were exposed to. They were also twice as likely to correctly recall the product category the advertisement was for, and were twice as likely to correctly identify the advertised brand. In addition, the respondents exposed to a low-clutter advertising environment showed almost three times greater prompted advertising recognition. The study also tested the relationship between position in the advertising block and the recall of the ad. Ads that were placed at the start and end of large blocks of ads were better recalled than ads in the centre of such large blocks. This effect was comparatively stronger for ads at the start of a block and weaker for ads at the end of a block. These results suggest that low-clutter stations are justified in charging a price premium. Exactly how much this premium should be depends largely upon the measure of effectiveness used, but based on advertising recall the price premium could be double. More research is needed to establish a suitable premium and to extend the findings of this study into a real life radio listening environment. Erica Riebe is a Senior Research Associate at the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute, University of South Australia. She conducts industry funded research in the areas of advertising effectiveness, brand growth and new brands. John Dawes is a Senior Research Associate at the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute, University of South Australia. His principal interests are the effects of price changes on demand and the analysis of competitive market structure. 1

2 Recall of Radio Advertising in Low and High Advertising Clutter Formats Abstract This study investigates the relationship between radio advertising clutter and advertising recall using the Australian radio market as a test case. The term clutter is defined here as a greater number of advertisements in a given time period. The study uses an experimental design in which certain groups of participants were exposed to a radio format with high advertising clutter, while others were exposed to a low-clutter format. The low-clutter respondents recalled as many ads on average as the high-clutter respondents. Since the low-clutter respondents were exposed to far fewer ads, the proportion of ads recalled by the low-clutter respondents was more than double that of the high-clutter respondents, and this effect was consistent across multiple recall measures. That is, the low-clutter participants were twice as likely to recall a particular advertisement among those ads they were exposed to. They were also twice as likely to correctly recall the product category the advertisement was for, and were twice as likely to correctly identify the advertised brand. In addition, the respondents exposed to a low-clutter advertising environment showed almost three times greater prompted advertising recognition. The study also tests the relationship between position in the advertising block and the recall of the ad. Ads that were placed at the start and end of large blocks of ads were better recalled than ads in the centre of such large blocks. This effect was comparatively stronger for ads at the start of a block and weaker for ads at the end of a block. These results suggest that low-clutter stations are justified in charging a price premium. Exactly how much this premium should be depends largely upon the measure of effectiveness used, but based on advertising recall the price premium could be double. More research is needed to establish a suitable premium and to extend the findings of this study into a real life radio listening environment. 1. Introduction Commercial radio stations in Australia generally take two approaches to the placement of advertising on their stations. They adopt what we call either a high or a low-clutter strategy. The high-clutter format has two aspects. It involves large blocks of ads (around eight) played between blocks of music and other material. This results in approximately twelve minutes of advertising per hour. The low-clutter format involves far less advertising, of approximately four minutes per hour. The advertising is also played in smaller blocks, with a maximum of two advertisements in a row. The high-clutter approach is the norm, probably because it has the advantage of allowing more advertising time to be sold. It is also easier to program and it allows the station to promote itself as playing large blocks of continuous music. The chief advantage of a low-clutter approach of approximately four minutes of advertisements per hour is that the radio station can play more music. This may have a positive effect on ratings, allowing higher prices for advertising space. Space is also easier for the station to sell because there is less available to be sold. The disadvantage of low clutter is that even a significant price premium per ad may not compensate for the revenue foregone from playing fewer ads. 2

3 Low-clutter stations seek to justify a price premium from advertisers by claiming that low advertising clutter will result in greater cut-through for the advertisements they play. The theoretical rationale for this claim is now discussed. 2. Theoretical Background There are good theoretical reasons for clutter to reduce advertising effectiveness. Firstly, advertising is not as enjoyable as music and talk, and it is not the reason that listeners listen to radio. Therefore larger amounts of advertising may result in listeners tuning out, that is not paying attention to the individual ads (Brown and Rothschild, 1993). Similarly, listeners might switch to another station while the ads are being played. Indeed higher amounts of advertising may also cause listeners to switch away for long periods, or even permanently - affecting ratings. More clutter also means that it is more likely for any advertisement to be preceded or succeeded by other advertisements. These other advertisements may make it more difficult for listeners to remember each ad because of interference effects (Burke and Srull, 1988, Keller, 1987, Keller, 1991). Interference theory states that various pieces of information interfere with each other s likelihood of being encoded and subsequently recalled. According to this theory, it is more difficult for a listener to transfer advertising information from short-term to long-term memory when other advertisements are playing, particularly similar advertisements and advertisements for competing brands. There is considerable empirical support for this notion. For example, Pieters (1997) found that unaided and aided recall of television commercials decreased as the number of commercials in a block increased. The study also found favourable effects on recall from placement either first or last in a block. Franzen (2001) cites similar results from Holland and Germany for television and print advertising. There is also a small empirical literature on clutter and advertising effectiveness in a radio context, which is now briefly reviewed. In the Ironing Board study (Brandon, 1981) respondents were exposed to a segment of radio while believing they were evaluating a new ironing starch product. This study showed that solus spot advertisements placed in a newsbreak produced at least 40% higher spontaneous ad recall than advertisements within advertising blocks. Replication of the original study by an anonymous author via the UK Radio Advertising Bureau (1994) found similar results, but in both studies it is not possible to isolate the effect of clutter on recall because clutter was confounded with the type of broadcast content the advertisement was placed in. A similar study was conducted by Bournemouth University (Anonymous, 1995). 296 respondents completed a jigsaw while being played 40 minutes of radio using two different formats. These were (a) classical music and low advertising clutter, and (b) top 40 music and high advertising clutter. Spontaneous ad recall was more than twice as high (16% compared to 7%) among respondents exposed to the low-clutter/classical music format. Recognition was on average 35% higher among the low-clutter group. This suggests that less clutter in a radio format might be linked to better ad recall, but again the level of clutter was manipulated together with the music format, making it difficult to attribute the higher recall solely to the lower clutter. A later study by Brennecke (1997) examined the impact of advertisement length, block length, position within the block, and the likeability of the advertisement on the recall of the 3

4 advertisement. The study found lower recall for commercials when there were more commercials in the block. This is consistent with the Ironing Board studies. A methodological note for this study is that the data was gathered by playing music and commercials to respondents over the telephone and then ascertaining recall. Arguably, this is a somewhat artificial listening experience for the respondent. Further research utilising a more realistic listening environment would be a valuable addition to our knowledge on this issue. A closely related topic to what has been discussed to this point is the influence of ad placement on recall. Interference theory, discussed above, implies that placement first or last in a series of advertisements should lead to higher recall. This is often referred to as recency or primacy effects. There is little in the way of research findings relating to placement and recall in a radio context, and currently there are conflicting findings. The second Ironing Board study (Anonymous, 1995) found no relationship between the position in break and recall. In contrast Brennecke (1997) found ads placed first in a block received higher recall. Therefore additional evidence on this issue would also be very useful to the radio industry and its clients. To further contribute to the empirical knowledge on these topics of clutter, placement, and advertising recall in a radio context, we designed an empirical study to further evaluate these relationships. The study was financed by an Australian radio network to whom we are indebted. 3. Methodology We used a central location methodology because it provided the optimum balance between realism, and the ability to control for effects which might distort results. The aim was to create an environment where respondents were distracted from what they were listening to, reflecting the usual radio listening environment. 241 respondents were randomly recruited to take part in the study. These respondents were recruited via telephone using an electronic telephone directory of the general public. The respondents were all between the ages of 18-35, which was the target market of the radio network commissioning the research. A small monetary incentive was provided to compensate for their travel and attendance time. The respondents were initially not made aware of the purpose of the research. They were first asked to complete an unrelated and lengthy pen and paper questionnaire. While doing this, they were provided with headphones, through which a radio broadcast was played (in reality a recording). The radio recording comprised a mixture of music and radio commercials. The music played between blocks of advertising was chosen from a current top 40 play list, comprising a mixture of pop and rock music. Each respondent was exposed to 20 minute mixtures of advertising and music, but were randomly allocated to either high or low-clutter treatments. The high-clutter treatment contained 4.5 minutes of advertising (played in a large block of nine advertisements) and 15.5 minutes of music. This was the equivalent of 13.5 minutes of advertising per hour, around the level of advertising played by most stations in the market at the time. The low-clutter treatment contained 1.5 minutes of advertising (in small blocks of one or two ads) and 18.5 minutes of music, being equivalent to 4.5 minutes per hour of advertising. This latter figure was the advertising level being proposed for a new station that was owned by the network that commissioned the research. 4

5 It is worth mentioning that participants in the high clutter treatments appear to have a harder task than those in the low clutter treatments in terms of achieving a proportion of ads recalled. This is because to recall the same proportion of ads that they were exposed to, the high clutter participants had to recall a larger number of ads in absolute terms. For example, to achieve 50% recall, the high clutter participants had to recall 4.5 ads on average (4.5 of the 9 they were exposed to). In contrast, the low clutter participants would have to recall 1.5 ads (1.5 of the 3 they were exposed to). This appears to inherently bias the results toward finding that low clutter produces a higher proportion of ads recalled. However, this situation reflects what happens in the real world listening situation. A real world radio listener exposed to, for argument s sale, twenty advertisements in an hour would have to recall ten of them in order for any one to have a 50% chance of being recalled. In comparison, a listener exposed to six advertisements would only have to recall three to achieve the same level of recall. The same advertisements were used within each treatment. The order in which they were heard by respondents was randomised to negate the possible influence of specific ads on the results. The music used in each of the treatments was also the same, and there was the same amount of music in between the last advert and the time when respondents were asked about their recall of the advertisements. The following table describes the treatments that were randomly allocated to respondents. (INSERT TABLE 1 HERE). Note that the experimental design we used was not perfectly balanced. In the high-clutter treatments, ads four, five and six were always in the middle of the block. However, since the purpose was not to determine recall for specific brands but to estimate the effect of clutter, this is not a serious limitation, as it does not conceivably bias the results. When the respondents completed the questionnaire and had been exposed to 20 minutes of music and advertising, they were given a second questionnaire and asked to record their recall of any advertisements that had been played. They were asked a range of questions to examine their level of recall, ranging from asking whether or not they had heard any advertising at all, through to naming the brand that had advertised. Finally, prompted measures of advertising recall were also utilised. 4. Controlling for factors, other than clutter, that might affect recall We attempted to eliminate major factors, other than clutter, that are known to affect ad recall. These are now briefly discussed. Likeability Ad likeability and its effect on ad recall came to prominence due to the findings of the ARF Copy Research Validity Project conducted by the Advertising Research Foundation in the late 1980 s (Haley and Baldinger, 1991). The somewhat surprising finding of this study was that controlling for advertising weight, likeability was the prime predictor of ad recall (Du Plessis, 1998; Jones, 1997a). Since that time, likeability of advertising and its relationship with recall has been further supported (Du Plessis, 1998; Du Plessis, 1994; Du Plessis and Foster, 2000; Lodish, 1997). That 5

6 is, more likeable ads generate higher average recall. We therefore sought to control for the effect of likeability on ad recall in our study. We pretested 31 advertisements prior to the main study taking place. This testing was conducted with a separate group of 20 respondents. From this pre-test, we chose nine advertisements of similar likeability for the major study. The ads were all good quality radio advertisements of equal length and were quite typical of Australian radio advertisements. Primacy and Recency Effects As mentioned earlier, it is suggested that exposure to either the first or last stimuli in a series can affect the respondent s ability to recall those stimuli (e.g. Stewart, Pechmann, Stroud and Bryant, 1985, Patzer, 1991). As detailed earlier, there is some support for both primacy and recency effects in relation to a respondent s ability to recall advertising. To account for the possible effects of hearing certain ads first or last in a block, the order of exposure for the nine ads was manipulated to minimise any possible primacy or recency effects. Prior Exposure A major potential source of bias in this context is the effect of prior exposure to the brands being advertised. For example a brand with a high level of advertising at the time of the study would be more likely to be recalled by respondents due to prior exposure rather than manipulation levels in the experiment. To control for that possibility, we only used commercials that had not been aired in the 12 months preceding the research. This precaution gives us confidence that biasing effects from previous exposure to the ads had a negligible effect on the results of the study. Frequency Many authors (e.g. Bogart, 1995; Cannon and Riordan, 1994; Elliott, 1985; Jones, 1997b; Roberts, 1999; Du Plessis, 1995) have suggested that the frequency with which an advertisement is played will affect the recall of that advertisement among listeners/readers. These studies have examined how this relationship changes as the frequency with which the ads are played is increased. The general consensus appears to be that there are diminishing returns. In other words, more frequency will improve recall but the rate of increase in recall diminishes as frequency increases. To control for any frequency effect, all of the ads used in this study were only played once. In a normal radio environment, ads may be played more frequently, however, for the purposes of this research it was necessary to control for the expected improvement in recall rates that will result in multiple exposures to the one advertisement. Determining how frequency for a specific ad relates to recall, and how this is mediated by the overall level of clutter, is an interesting question for future research. Prior Usage/Awareness There is evidence that people are more likely to take notice of ads for brands they use (Sharp, Beal and Romaniuk, 2001, Sharp, Beal and Romaniuk, 2002). This means ad recall will be 6

7 higher among brand users than non users. To control for the expected influence of past usage on advertising recall, the high and low-clutter groups were asked about their prior usage of the brands that were advertised after measuring their recall. The two groups were compared and there were no systematic differences between the groups in their usage of the advertised brands. 5. Results Awareness of any advertising Respondents were first asked if they recalled hearing any advertising. 84% of the respondents who were exposed to the low level of clutter recalled hearing some advertising. The figure among high-clutter respondents was virtually the same at 85%. This suggests that regardless of the amount of clutter, respondents are quite likely to notice that a station features commercial breaks. This was in spite of the low-clutter respondents being exposed to 1/3rd of the advertising of their high-clutter counterparts. Recall of specific ads and brands Respondents were then asked if they could describe specific advertisements. Respondents in the high-clutter group were able to correctly describe 1.4 ads of the nine they were exposed to. This equates to 16% (1.4 / 9) of the ads they were exposed to. In the low-clutter group the comparable figure was 1.1 ads, which equates to 37% (1.1 / 3) of the ads they were exposed to. Therefore the low-clutter environment resulted in a higher level of recall of the ads that were played. The difference is statistically significant at p<0.05. Respondents were then asked to name the product category for any ads they could recall. For the high-clutter respondents the ability to recall the product category was 10% of the ads heard, compared to 20% for the low-clutter respondents. Again this is statistically significant (p<0.05). Brand recall was lower than ad recall in both groups. High-clutter respondents correctly named the brand featured in 5% of cases, compared to 7% for the low-clutter respondents. While this difference was not statistically significant, it was in the same direction as the other results. We note that brand recall is a far harder measure of advertising effectiveness than category recall, and is more likely to be related to the propensity for a brand to be bought. Given that all the results are in the same direction, we interpret this result as additional evidence that the low clutter environment is preferable to the high clutter environment. Prompted recognition Respondents were also tested for their ability to recall ads given a brand prompt. The prompt was a list of 20 brand names, 9 of which were brands that had featured in the high-clutter treatment. For those who were exposed to the low-clutter treatment, just 3 of the 20 brands were included in the treatment they had been exposed to. The remaining brands were brands that were not advertised and in some cases were brands in the same categories as the exposed advertisements. We expected that this would be a particularly hard test for those respondents who had been 7

8 exposed to a low-clutter treatment. These respondents needed to recognise the brands that they had heard advertisements for, from comparatively more brands. Chance alone would dictate that they would have a 3 in 20 chance of correctly identifying one of the ads to which they had been exposed. In comparison, the high-clutter respondents should have found this question far easier to answer. They had a 9 in 20 chance of correctly identifying a brand whose advertising they had been exposed to. We therefore expected, based on chance alone, that the high-clutter respondents would produce prompted recognition scores that were 3 times those of their low-clutter counterparts. This is not, however, what we found. When given this list of brands, respondents exposed to low-clutter treatments correctly chose brands that they had been exposed to for 31% of the ads. That is, out of the 360 ads these respondents were collectively exposed to, on 112 occasions respondents correctly indicated that they had heard an advertisement for one of the brands on the list. This compared to 11% for the high-clutter group (119 of the 1080 advertising exposures). This difference was statistically significant at the p<0.05 level. As described above, from the list of 20 brands, respondents may have chosen brands that they were exposed to, purely by chance. For the low-clutter group, the probability of correctly choosing a brand that they were exposed to purely by chance was 15% (i.e. 3 in 20). For the high-clutter group, the chance of correctly identifying a brand to which they were exposed was 45% (i.e. 9 in 20). If we compare the actual recall rate of these groups to what we might expect from chance alone, the low-clutter group showed a far larger improvement on chance than the high-clutter group. The rate of recall for the low-clutter group was 73%, an almost five times improvement on chance (which was 15%), whereas the high-clutter group gained 83% prompted recall, which in comparison was only around double the recall that we would expect from chance alone, which was 45%. These results are summarised in the table below. (INSERT TABLE 2 HERE) Effects of Placement within the Ad Block The effect of ad placement on recall and recognition rates was also tested by varying the position of advertisements within the advertising block. Advertisements were placed either first, last or in the middle of a block. Recall and recognition for the ads were then compared according to these placements. We found evidence of primacy and recency effects. Adverts played at the start or at the end of blocks had higher recall. For ads played in the worst position, that is, in the centre of the highclutter treatment, recognition rates were only one third as high as when the ads were played in the low-clutter/small block format (4% compared to 14%, statistically significant at p<0.05). This supports the notion that respondents do tune-out after the first few advertisements in an advertising block. In a real world situation they may possibly also switch stations. 6. Conclusion and Implications This study suggests that a low clutter format is approximately twice as effective at generating ad recall compared to a low-clutter format. It extends prior research on radio advertising that has hinted at such an effect but was unable to precisely confirm it due to simultaneously 8

9 manipulating clutter with station format or the content surrounding the ads (news versus music, for instance). In addition, it adds further evidence as to the value of early or late placement in an ad block. While this result is perhaps not surprising, it is very important to confirm and quantify such relationships. In this case this important finding provides a guide for both buyers and sellers of radio advertising space regarding what is an appropriate price differential between low-clutter and high-clutter formats. We briefly overview the issues from both the advertiser and the station viewpoint below. Advertiser s viewpoint These findings suggest that an advertiser should be prepared to pay up to twice as much for a spot in a low clutter environment compared to a high clutter environment, controlling for ratings. This is on the basis that an ad in a low clutter format generates approximately double the ad recall. If we make an additional assumption that lower clutter induces less channel switching, which is apparently reasonable (Brown and Rothchild, 1993), then an even higher price may be justifiable. Likewise, from the advertiser s viewpoint, this research suggests placement at the start or end of a block of ads could be desirable, especially if no additional price premium is attached. Radio station viewpoint To explicate the pricing issue for the radio station, we consider the situation whereby a station could sell all available space in either low or high clutter format. In this scenario, adopting a low clutter format and charging 100% more per spot would result in a 33% decline in advertising revenue - all other things being equal. On this basis, a low clutter format is not as financially attractive as a high clutter format. However, a station may accrue other benefits from adopting a low clutter format. First, having less space to sell may make it easier to sell what space there is. This could result in lower costs. Indeed, having less space might further bid up the market price for those spots. It may also help the station become more discriminating in accepting better quality radio advertisements, to the benefit of ratings or lower levels of listener switching away during ad breaks. Additionally, low clutter itself may help ratings in the long term by attracting new listeners. As we stated earlier, listeners principally listen for the broadcast material not the advertisements, and so fewer ads might attract listeners from competitor channels. In summary, adopting a low clutter format and charging up to double the price per spot would require additional benefits to work financially. However, we have identified what some of those benefits might be, and it is not unreasonable to think some of them might indeed occur. 7. Future Research The range of effectiveness measures used in this paper have suggested that a low clutter price premium is justified. That said, it is important to place a caveat on this conclusion and to suggest the need for future research in this area. This research was conducted as an experiment, rather than a real world study. As with many experiments, we traded off some degree of reality for an enhanced ability to control the pertinent stimuli. The next stage for research in this area would be to determine whether the results achieved here can be found when listeners are able to drive a car, talk to friends and, importantly, 9

10 switch stations. From an advertisers point of view, establishing the generalisability of this initial finding would add to their confidence in paying a significant price premium for lower clutter. A real radio listening environment would also allow testing of the impact of frequency, in addition to that of clutter, on advertising effectiveness. In this paper, the frequency with which an ad was aired was restricted to a single airing of the advertisements. This is analagous to a listener tuned into the radio for a short period and hearing only one airing of an ad. It is not reflective of a longer listening period in which a listener could be exposed to the same ad multiple times. Similarly, in order to determine exactly what the price premium should be for a low-clutter ad spot, future research should consider the ratings of different stations and the abilities of different channels to achieve high ratings amongst a particular sub-set of the audience. Advertisers may still prefer placement in high-clutter environments if those environments offer a particular audience profile. For example, a rock station might operate with a high clutter format but still be the best platform to reach a particular demographic. In addition, the findings of this research suggest that a price premium may be justified based upon position in the advertising pod. Calculating the appropriate size of such a premium, however, involves the same issues that arise for calculating a premium based on the level of clutter in a listening environment. In addition to listeners mentally tuning out, it would also be necessary to capture the phenomena of channel switching. If more listeners switch stations as the duration of the break gets longer, the value of the spots clearly declines according to later placement in the ad break. However, in this study respondents were unable to switch stations and so this makes it difficult to correctly estimate the value of ads placed in different positions in the break. A real life study, where station switching behaviour can occur, would allow a finer estimation of the appropriate price for a low clutter format. Finally, we also suggest that the results of this paper be tested in other media such as print and television. While this study was limited to radio listening, the issue of clutter is also of increasing importance for all other media. 10

11 Table 1: Experimental Treatments Treatment Type Description Order of ads No of respondents #1 Low clutter Single ad, then music, then double ad, then music #2 Low clutter Single ad, then music, then two ads, then music #3 Low clutter Single ad, then music, then two ads, then music #4 Low clutter Two ads, then music, then single ad, then music #5 Low clutter Two ads, then music, then single ad, then music #6 Low clutter Two ads, then music, then single ad, then music #7 High clutter #8 High clutter Music, nine ads, then music Music, nine ads, then music 1, then 4 and , then 5 and 8 3, then 6 and 9 1 and 4 then 7 2 and 5 then 8 3 and 6 then 9 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,

12 Table 2: Results Summary Measure High-Clutter Low-Clutter Recall of hearing some advertising at all 85% 84% Recall of specific advertisements, that is respondents were able to describe the ad (% of advertisements heard) Could correctly name the product category of the advertisements heard Could correctly name the brand featured in the advertisements heard (average over all ads?) 16% 37% 10% 20% 5% 7% Prompted advertising recognition (% of ads heard) 11% 31% Prompted advertising recognition (improvement on chance) 1.8 times improvement on chance (i.e. 83% c.f. 45% by chance alone) 4.9 times improvement on chance (i.e. 73% c.f. 15% by chance alone) 12

13 References Anonymous (1994) 'The Ironing Board Study 2' Radio Advertising Bureau, 2003, see Anonymous (1995) 'The Jigsaw Study' Radio Advertising Bureau, 2003, see Bogart, L. (1995) 'Is There an Optimum Frequency in Advertising?' Admap (February), Brandon, K. (1981) 'The Ironing Board Study' Radio Advertising Bureau, see Brennecke, S. (1997) 'Factors Influencing the Effectiveness of Radio Advertising' Radio Advertising Bureau, see Brown, T.J. and M.L. Rothschild (1993) 'Reassessing the Impact of Television Advertising Clutter'. Journal of Consumer Research 20, Burke, R.R. and T.K. Srull (1988) 'Competitive Interference and Consumer Memory for Advertising' Journal of Consumer Research 15 (June), Cannon, H.M. and E.A. Riordan (1994) 'Effective Reach and Frequency: Does it Really Make Sense?' Journal of Advertising Research 34 (March/April), Du Plessis, E. (1994) 'Recognition Versus Recall' Journal of Advertising Research 34 (3, May/June), Du Plessis, E. (1995) 'An Advertising Burst is Just a lot of Drips (A perspective on the reach, Frequency, and Response Curve Arguments)' Admap (July). Du Plessis, E. (1998) 'Memory and Likeability: Keys to Understanding Ad Effects' Admap (July/August), Du Plessis, E. and C. Foster (2000) 'Like the Ad. Like the brand? Chicken, or egg?' Admap (December), Elliott, J. (1985) 'How Advertising Frequency Affects Advertising Effectiveness: Indications of Change' Admap (October), Franzen, G. and M. Bouman (2001) 'The Mental World of Brands - Mind, Memory and Brand Success' Great Britain: World Advertising Research Centre. Haley, R.I. and A.L. Baldinger (1991) 'The ARF Copy Research Validity Project' Journal of Advertising Research 31 (April/May), Jones, J.P. (1997a) 'Is Advertising Still Salesmanship?' Journal of Advertising Research (May- June), Jones, J.P. (1997b). 'What Does Effective Frequency Mean in 1997?' Journal of Advertising Research (July-August), Keller, K.L. (1987) 'Memory Factors in Advertising: the Effect of Advertising Retrieval Cues on 13

14 Brand Evaluations' Journal of Consumer Research 14 (3), Keller, K.L. (1991) 'Memory and Evaluation Effects of Competitive Advertising Environments' Journal of Consumer Research 33 (2), Lodish, L.M. (1997) 'Point of View: J.P. Jones and M.H. Blair on Measuring Advertising Effectiveness - Another Point of View' Journal of Advertising Research (September-October), Patzer, G.I. (1991) 'Multiple Dimensions of Performance for Thirty Second and Fifteen Second Commercials' Journal of Advertising Research 31, Pieters, R.G.M. and T.H.A. Bijmolt (1997) 'Consumer Memory for Television Advertising: A Field Study of Duration, Serial Position, and Competition Effects' Journal of Consumer Research 23 (March), Roberts, A. (1999) 'Recency, Frequency and the Sales Effects of TV Advertising' Admap (February), Sharp, B., V. Beal and J. Romaniuk (2001). 'First Steps Towards a Marketing Empirical Generalisation: Brand Usage and Subsequent Advertising Recall' Australia & New Zealand Academy of Marketing Conference 2001 Albany, New Zealand: Massey University. Sharp, B., V. Beal and J. Romaniuk (2002) 'Quantifying an Empirical Generalisation: Usage and Advertising Recall in the International Travel Market' Australia & New Zealand Academy of Marketing Conference 2002 Melbourne: Deakin University. Stewart, D.W., C. Pechmann, S. Rameshwar, J. Stroud and B. Bryant (1985) 'Methodological and Theoretical Foundations of Advertising Copy Testing: A Review' 2,