Comparative Advertising and Brand Evaluation: Toward Developing a Categorization Approach

Abstract

A categorization model was proposed to account for the effects of direct, indirect, and no comparison advertising on aspects of new brand evaluation. Direct comparisons were hypothesized to promote exemplar‐based processing, and indirect comparisons were hypothesized to promote prototype‐based processing. Evaluation of attributes of the new brand were hypothesized to depend on the type of processing promoted by the comparative ads. Subjects used comparative response scales to evaluate attributes of the new brands relative to a leading brand or “other brands.” Results supported the utility of developing a more formal categorization model. Indirect comparisons resulted in more favorable evaluation of the new brands relative to “other brands” than to the leading brand, whereas direct comparisons resulted in more favorable evaluation relative to both leading and “other brands.” Both kinds of comparative advertising were more effective than noncomparative advertising in promoting favorable evaluations. I concluded that the categorization model may be useful for accounting for effects of different types of comparative advertising, including association of the new brand with positive category attributes and differentiation of the new brand from competitors on evaluative dimensions.

Effects of comparative claims in prescription drug direct-to-consumer advertising on consumer perceptions and recall

“…This finding is consistent with previous studies showing that relative measures (subjective measures requiring consumer judgment about similarities or differences between brands) are more sensitive to comparative advertising effects than are nonrelative measures (objective measures of performance, devoid of a comparison; Grewal et al, 1997;Miniard et al, 1993Miniard et al, , 1998Pechmann and Ratneshwar, 1991;Snyder, 1992). However, it should be noted that these findings were not replicated in the video conditions, as we found no evidence that named versus unnamed comparisons differentially affected perceptions there.…”

On the Need for Relative Measures When Assessing Comparative Advertising Effects

“…Nonetheless, these studies have not provided an unambiguous test of Hypothesis 1 because of measurement confounds. For example, although the comparative and noncomparative ads examined in Snyder's (1992) study produced similar responses to nonrelative attitude measures, persuasion differences favoring the comparative ads were uncovered by Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 15:34 15 March 2015 differentiative relative measures of attribute beliefs. However, because type of measure is confounded with type of construct, one cannot attribute unambiguously the observed effects to only type of measurement.…”

“…However, because type of measure is confounded with type of construct, one cannot attribute unambiguously the observed effects to only type of measurement. Thus, Snyder's (1992) findings may be indicating either that attribute belief measures are more responsive than attitude measures or that relative measures are more responsive than nonrelative measures. This limitation reoccurs throughout the literature.…”

“…This is not to imply that relative measures have never been used in comparative advertising studies. Our review of the literature revealed a handful of studies that included relative measures (Belch 1981;Droge and Darmon 1987;Gorn and Weinberg 1984;Murphy and Amundsen 1981;Pechmann and Ratneshwar 1991;Prasad 1976;Snyder 1992;Swinyard 1981). In most cases, relative measures have proved responsive to comparative advertising effects.…”

How context shapes category inferences and attribute preference for new ambiguous products

“…Consumers also make comparisons in or among advertisements (Zhang, Kardes, & Cronley, 2002). Some advertisements invoke comparisons because they explicitly contrast products (Snyder, 1992). Others invoke comparisons because the target ad is simply seen alongside competing products (Malaviya, Kisielius, & Sternthal, 1996).…”