Advertising Planning
Advertising Planning
Advertising Planning
www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-4503.htm
Introduction
Models of advertising effect
For several decades, marketing executives and academics have attempted to develop
formal theories of “how advertising works” with the aim of facilitating the design of
advertisements and the practical execution of campaigns. These theories appear in
marketing textbooks and have been taught by marketing educators to successive
generations of students in the business and management field. Notable examples of the
prescriptive models arising from theories of how advertising works are attention, Marketing Intelligence & Planning
Vol. 24 No. 5, 2006
interest, desire, action (AIDA) and its numerous hierarchy-of-effects derivatives, such pp. 505-527
as ACIAS, ACALTA, AAPIS, DAGMAR and others (Barry and Howard, 1990), the q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0263-4503
FCB grid (Vaughn, 1980) and such descendants as the Rossiter-Percy configuration, DOI 10.1108/02634500610682890
MIP and various “affect” and “cognition”-based approaches (Vakratsas and Ambler, 1999).
24,5 Other conceptual frameworks sometimes employed as a foundation for advertising
planning are derived from the disciplines of semiotics (Williamson, 1978; Barthes,
1985), psycholinguistics (Vestergaard and Schroder, 1985; Fairclough, 1989; Bruthiaux,
1996) and discourse analysis (Myers, 1999; Cook, 2001). Semioticians have attempted to
conceptualise the way advertising works in terms of how customers define and
506 interpret signs and symbols within messages. Psycholinguists focus on the textual
dimensions of advertisements, using linguistic theory. Discourse analysts see language
as a prime determinant of the ways in which people ascribe meaning to
advertisements. Cook (2001), in particular, proposed that advertisements can be
systemically decoded by examining the properties of their textual elements and the
relationships among objects in the vicinities of those elements.
Advertising agencies may or may not subscribe to such frameworks. Possibly, the
advertising practitioner community has limited awareness of the work of marketing
academics and little confidence in their ability to solve practical problems. This is a
matter of substantial concern, because formal theories of how advertising works can
form a basis for planning an entire advertising campaign. They provide a wider
perspective on the advertising process and contribute marketing intelligence to the
campaign planning task (Crosier and Pickton, 2003).
The advertising agency function charged with the task of providing this input to
campaign planning and development is “account planning”. In this particular context,
“account” has no connection with financial accounting, but is the term historically used
to denote an advertising agency’s client or, more precisely, those elements of its total
advertising programme that it sub-contracts to that particular agency: for example,
“the XYZ Bank home loans account”. Writing in a special issue of Marketing
Intelligence & Planning devoted to account planning, Baskin and Pickton (2003) noted
how clients as well as agencies benefited from a “disciplined system” for
understanding customers and devising campaigns. Account planners unearthed key
insights into communications solutions, with advertising modelling constituting a
critical element of their role. In the same special issue, Crosier and Pickton (2003)
recorded how account planning required integration across the whole marketing
communications mix. Advertising models, which had long pedigrees, offered
integrated perspectives that facilitated strategic marketing communications thinking
and practice. The models had developed substantially over time. Also in that issue,
Zambardino and Goodfellow (2003) traced the rapid expansion of integrated account
planning from the application of sequential AIDA models in the 1970s to increasingly
sophisticated approaches in later decades.
Academics naturally regard the integration of marketing theory and practice as
being both valuable and desirable, and believe that it is they who should drive
marketing knowledge forward. It is relevant to note in the present context, however,
that a firm which puts together its own presumptions about the fundamental
determinants of successful creative advertising might be able to gain a competitive
edge over its rivals by convincing clients that it possesses unique knowledge of the
ways in which customers mentally process and respond to advertisements (Brierley,
1998). Hence, it could use the possession of an independently developed in-house model
as a means for inducing clients to believe that the firm offers a superior service
(Brockman and Morgan, 1999). Brierley (1998) observed that advertising agencies
“actually differ very little from each other” and offer “essentially the same menu” to Ad-agency use of
clients. Thus, a firm’s conspicuous assertion that it has special insights into the basic advertising
constituents of advertising effectiveness could differentiate it from rivals and bestow
considerable public relations and reputation-enhancing benefits (Alpert, 1994). On the models
other hand, the creation in-house of plausible propositions that can be put before clients
concerning the elemental nature of advertising could be costly and time-consuming,
and clients might not be impressed by them in the first place (Sundbo and Gallouj, 507
2000). Smaller advertising services providers in particular may lack the time,
knowledge and financial resources necessary to nurture in-house their own ideas about
how advertising works (Caputo et al., 2002).
Knowledge incorporates general technical and professional skills (Caputo et al., 2002)
and familiarity with specific concepts, models or leading edge practices
(Murphy and Southey, 2003). Familiarity itself depends in part on experience (Alba and Ad-agency use of
Hutchinson, 1987). Staff with appropriate experience may be recruited from outside the advertising
organisation. Speece et al. (2003) argued that the employment of personnel with prior
experience of working in large international advertising agencies accelerated the models
adoption of “best practice” advertising templates.
Organisational culture
A business that employs managers with favourable attitudes towards change might
have an internal climate conducive to the implementation of intellectually
sophisticated ideas and methods (Damanpour, 1991; Martins and Terblanche, 2003).
MIP Some executives are “fascinated by the new and exciting” (Alpert, 1994), and may in
24,5 consequence have the motivational disposition to develop knowledge of theoretical
models of how advertising works (Murphy and Southey, 2003). An “innovative”
organisational culture provides shared values that ensure that individual managers
continually strive to excel and improve a firm’s performance. Resources will be
directed toward the development of creative ideas (Tesluk et al., 1997) and advanced
510 methods will be absorbed into the firm’s internal processes (Tushman and O’Reilly,
1997), with consequent benefits for the firm’s organisation’s structures, policies and
administrative practices (Martins and Terblanche, 2003). Managers are socialised into
innovative norms (Tesluk et al., 1997). Creative solutions to problems are encouraged,
supported and implemented, while failures resulting from experimentation will be
tolerated (Judge et al., 1997).
511
Decision to
apply advertising
Organisational effectiveness
knowledge of theory (pre-
advertising existing or
theory
theory developed in-
house)
Client attitudes
Innovative towards Organisational
organisational academic slack
culture advertising
theory Figure 1.
Factors encouraging
adoption
The study
Drawing on the literature review, a questionnaire was designed to explore the
influences of the factors shown in Figure 1 on decisions to apply advertising
effectiveness theory to practical situations. A first draft was discussed with senior
account planners in ten UK advertising agencies to ensure that it captured all relevant Ad-agency use of
issues, leading to the rewording of certain items before the questionnaire was advertising
pre-tested via:
models
.
a mailing to 50 agencies drawn at random from the main sampling frame used
for the investigation; and
.
administration face-to-face to four advertising executives, in order to observe at
first hand their reactions to each of the items.
513
The questionnaire
The questionnaire began with a section concerning the nature of the firm (creative or
full-service agency and possible specialisation in a particular sector), number of
employees, length of establishment, and membership of trade or professional
associations. This was followed by three items adapted from Fletcher et al. (1996), to
measure the levels of education and training of a company’s employees (Appendix,
Section A), and three items based on the same source to assess whether the
organisation had substantial “slack resources” (Appendix, Section B). IOC was
evaluated via four items suggested by Alpert (1994), to be found in the Appendix at
Section C. Organisational knowledge of theories of how advertising works was
measured by modifying three items from relevant inventories in Bruner and Hensel
(1998): see Appendix, Section D. Ad hoc items were used to assess whether many of the
firm’s employees belonged to professional bodies and to establish whether the
organisation recruited staff who previously had worked in:
.
large and well-established agencies;
.
multi-national agencies; and/or
MIP .
agencies that applied formal models of advertising effectiveness when devising
24,5 campaigns.
These are shown in the Appendix at Section E. Apart from the factual information, all
items were scored using five-point scales of agreement-disagreement, unless otherwise
indicated elsewhere in this account.
514 The second section of the questionnaire asked the respondents whose agencies did
not apply theories of how advertising works to indicate the strengths of their feelings
about the reasons, including the issue of client attitudes towards the usefulness of
advertising theory, by responding to 12 statement on a five-point scale of
importance-unimportance, as shown in Table I. Participants from businesses that
did apply advertising effectiveness theory were requested to state whether their
approach had been developed in-house or was simply the implementation of a
pre-existing framework, and then to rate their evaluations of the reasons why their
companies had chosen to adopt or devise a model, by responding to nine statements on
Standard Percentage
Mean deviation in I/VI categories
Hence, the final section of the questionnaire (Appendix, Section F) asked a series of
questions based on textbook descriptions of the fundamental components of various
frameworks: affect (F1), cognition (F2); hierarchy of effects (F3); and those related to
involvement in some way or other (F4). Additional items asked if a firm’s approach
focused on “reminder” advertising and if it considered the stage of the product life
cycle that a brand or product occupied at the time of a campaign. The final
questionnaire item asked the respondent to say which of the major textbook models he
or she had heard of (Appendix, Section G).
After a follow up, 224 completed questionnaires were returned by 72 creative
agencies and 152 full-service agencies: 28 per cent of the sampling frame. This
response rate is similar to those achieved by other surveys of the advertising agency
sector reported in the literature reviewed. The responding firms operated in a wide
range of sectors with no single one predominating. Standard checks were completed for
the possible existence of early response bias (by comparing the earliest and latest
thirds of the received responses) and for content bias (by asking 100 non-respondents
to give their reason for non-return, and analysing the replies). No evidence of bias
emerged from either exercise.
Results
The agencies in the sample had a median of 37 employees and on the average had been
in existence for eleven years; only ten per cent had been established for less than five
years. Half belonged to at least one trade or professional association. An examination
of the means, standard deviations, and correlations among the variables for the 152
full-service and 72 creative agencies did not reveal any meaningfully discernible
differences in the patterns of results between the types. Thus, agency category was Ad-agency use of
ignored in the remainder of the analysis. advertising
Thirty-three per cent of the respondents claimed that their agencies had developed
their own models of how advertising works in-house; 28 per cent stated that they models
followed standard pre-existing models to guide their activities. Thus, a clear majority
of the agencies subscribed to a theoretical model of some kind. Table I gives the mean
values for and the percentages of participants agreeing or strongly agreeing with the 517
questionnaire items completed by respondents in the 87 agencies that did not employ
any theoretical framework whatsoever regarding how advertising works. The
dominant reason for failing to use a theoretical model was a preference for the unique
customisation of messages and campaigns for each individual client, presumably for
fear that that the application of a standard framework would inhibit an agency’s
capacity to apply this approach (Item 11). Other major reasons offered for not
employing a model were the belief that academic theories of advertising are too
complicated to be applied in practice (Item 2), the absence of resources, and the lack of
the staff needed to apply or develop models (Items 5-6). These last three variables were
substantially intercorrelated: R . 0.55 in all cases. Perceived lack of client demand
(Items 3 and 6) also exerted considerable influence. It is interesting to note, however,
that there was little outright opposition to advertising theory per se. Only eleven per
cent of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they had “no confidence” in the
value of formal models (Item 1), and minorities agreed or strongly agreed with the
propositions that customer responses to advertising could not be modelled (Item 8) and
that “intuition and gut feelings” provided a better option (Item 12). Overall, it, therefore,
appears that the absence of resources and lack of client interest were the main drivers
of decisions not to apply advertising theory.
Table II lists the reasons for having developed an in-house model that were given by
the 57 agencies reporting that they had done this. Clearly the use of a proprietary
model was seen as an excellent device for promoting the firm (Item 6), for attracting
clients (Item 8), and for differentiating the agency from rivals (Item 1). The models
involved were employed more for operational guidance (Items 3 and 5). Table III covers
a number of miscellaneous issues connected with the employment of models developed
in-house. Overwhelmingly, the participants described their agency’s model(s) as
uncomplicated and relatively easy to use (Item 1). The performance of in-house models
were regularly monitored and evaluated (Item 3), although client feedback was not
normally considered. The respondents were generally satisfied with how their models
had performed. An important motivation for developing a model was the feeling that
the agency could not afford to be without an advertising model (Item 6).
Forty per cent of the respondents in agencies that had developed a model in-house
confirmed that they had heard of the hierarchy-of-effects approach, with 36 per cent
recognising the acronym AIDA. Forty per cent also knew about the FCB grid; 18 per
cent were familiar with the elaboration likelihood model; ten per cent with the Rosser
Reeves description of how advertisements should be formulated, and six per cent with
the Rossiter-Percy variant. Responses to the question “Which of these models
resembles the model you have developed in-house?” revealed that only two of these
“textbook” approaches substantially matched the models the sample agencies had
devised in-house: elaboration likelihood (18 per cent), and AIDA (12 per cent). Fewer
MIP than five per cent of the respondents reported similarities between the model they
24,5 employed and any of the other approaches.
As regards the respondents in agencies that used pre-existing models not developed
internally, 50 per cent stated that they knew about the hierarchy-of-effects approach,
with 20 per cent recognising the term AIDA; 38 per cent were familiar with the FCB
grid, 25 per cent with the elaboration likelihood model, 20 per cent with Rosser Reeves
518 and 12 per cent with Rossiter-Percy. The pre-existing model upon which a firm’s
approach was based was reported to be the hierarchy of effects scheme in 46 per cent of
the agencies, elaboration likelihood in 31 per cent and Rosser Reeves in 19 per cent.
Rossiter-Percy and the FCB grid scored eleven per cent and nine per cent, respectively.
(These figures do not total 100 because some respondents ticked more than one box,
indicating that mixtures of the models cited would be employed in appropriate
circumstances.)
24,5
Firm is long established
Firm has high organisational
knowledge of advertising theory
Uses involvement
models
Dimension 1 (Conservatism)
520
Staff have formal advertising
qualifications
Contribution to Explanation by
inertia dimension
Dimension Dimension
Characteristics 1 2 1 2
Firm is not innovative 0.01 0.65 0.02 0.95
Firm does not promote its model to clients 0.01 0.05 0.09 0.67
Firm does not engage in competitor analysis 0.02 0.15 0.12 0.66
Staff have little knowledge of advertising theory 0.02 0.14 0.12 0.65
Firm has a high level of OKAT 0.64 0.01 0.91 0.04
Staff tend to possess formal qualifications in
marketing or advertising 0.16 0.00 0.69 0.09
Firm has been established for a long period 0.14 0.00 0.67 0.10
Basic character of the approach adopted
Hierarchy of effects 0.15 0.69 0.25 0.70
Table V. Affect 0.45 0.15 0.70 0.19
Significant clusters Involvement 0.40 0.16 0.69 0.21
reduced the Kruskal stress coefficient by just 14 per cent (from 0.28 to 0.24), while the
inclusion of a fourth dimension would have caused the stress coefficient to fall by
barely four per cent. The first two eigenvalues explained 77.3 per cent of total inertia.
Figure 2 and Table V display only the variables with dimensional factor loadings
exceeding 0.5, the criterion recommended by Hair et al. (1998).
The variables involved in the clusters suggest that the first dimension, which
according to Table V is heavily associated with the absence of innovative culture and a
paucity of proactive marketing, may conveniently be labelled “conservatism”. Figure 2
shows conservatism with high values near the origin. Dimension 2 has been designated
“organisational knowledge” as it consists mainly of variables connected with
knowledge and advertising qualifications. It is evident from Figure 2 that the use of Ad-agency use of
hierarchy-of-effects approaches is closely associated with high conservatism and low advertising
organisational knowledge. Agencies that employed models based on
hierarchy-of-effects elements tended to lack innovative culture, and to be less models
proactive in respect of competitor analysis and model promotion. Agencies with high
OKAT were more inclined to apply involvement models. This was also true also for
longer-established agencies. (Cognition-based approaches were not associated with 521
any particular grouping of agency characteristics.)
Conclusion
The generic hierarchy-of-effects configuration was the most popular among agencies
that did employ any model. However, it use was most prevalent among agencies that
lacked an innovatory culture and possessed little OKAT. This model was also the best
known among respondents. In general, nevertheless, there was considerable ignorance
among the sample members of “textbook” advertising models. For instance, less than
half the account planners in agencies that used a model actually recognised the term
“hierarchy of effects”. The proportion of respondents who stated that they knew about
the other models listed in the final section of the questionnaire ranged from nine to 38
per cent. Notwithstanding the respondents’ lack of familiarity with the names of these
standard models, the elements of the approaches that agencies actually applied did
factor into genres corresponding with well-known theoretical configurations. The main
benefits ascribed to the in-house development of an advertising model focused on an
agency’s ability to use the possession of a proprietary model to differentiate itself from
rivals and to project a professional image.
Although well over a third of the sample eschewed the use of advertising models,
there was little to suggest the presence of animosity towards advertising theory of
itself. Only just over one in ten of the account planners in agencies that did not follow a
model of how advertising works agreed or strongly agreed that they had “no
confidence” in advertising theory. Similarly, just 15 per cent agreed that there was “no
hard evidence” of the value of theoretical models. Rather, it appeared that the failure to
employ a model was substantially due to resource constraints, time pressures, and not
having staff who possessed the requisite knowledge. A little over half of respondents in
agencies lacking a model agreed or strongly agreed that they would like to adopt or
develop one. Those in agencies that used advertising models were generally satisfied
with their models’ performances.
Constructs drawn from the academic literature on knowledge dissemination worked
well as independent variables helping to explain decisions to employ a model. An
agency’s membership of a professional body contributed significantly to the likelihood
that it would report a high level of OKAT. Thus, to the extent that agencies without
models would like to acquire more information about the options available and their
qualities, joining an appropriate professional body, such as the Institute of
Practitioners in Advertising in the UK, would be a beneficial move. Likewise,
OKAT was greater within agencies that hired people with formal marketing or
advertising qualifications, such as those offered worldwide by the UK-based Chartered
Institute of Marketing. Hence, an agency that wishes to improve its stock of knowledge
of how advertising works would be well advised to recruit individuals who have
obtained qualifications of this nature.
MIP A number of limitations need to be mentioned in relation to the research. Less than a
24,5 third of the sampling frame returned the questionnaire, and it is conceivable that those
respondents might consist disproportionately of account planners in agencies that did
use models rather than others in those that ignored advertising theory. However, there
are no a priori grounds for concluding that the results obtained from agencies that did
not subscribe to models are not generalisable.
522 A more significant problem with the study was perhaps the fact that it was not
possible to establish the precise details of the in-house proprietary models that
agencies were actually using, and hence to establish the degree to which the treatments
in academic textbooks reflected current practice. This is an important area for future
research, as it is obviously desirable that the models described there are those applied
within the advertising industry. Otherwise, practitioners will eschew any academic
model of “how advertising works” possibly resulting in their seeking advice only from
consultants. It is not clear how this conundrum can be resolved, because a proprietary
model constitutes a valuable and necessary confidential corporate asset. Possibly a
government agency or a professional body in the advertising field might be able to
cajole agencies into disclose their essential characteristics, for the purpose of creating a
synthesis of contemporary approaches to be disseminated to the academic community.
Future research might include comparisons of the advertising theories employed by
agencies in different countries, and exploration of the influences of a wider range of
variables than those covered by the present study. Another topic worthy of additional
investigation is the impact on agencies’ modelling procedures of the ever increasing
availability of computer software for advertising planning. To what extent do agencies
construct their models around the features and capacities of these packages, if at all?
Such matters are important because, in the broader business and strategic
management contexts, the employment of advertising models has the capacity to
inform and facilitate marketing planning as a whole. Their use encourages the astute
application of knowledge and understanding about the market (Baskin and Pickton,
2003) and provides a means for evaluating creative work and campaign performance
(Zambardino and Goodfellow, 2003). It is essential, therefore, that theory and practice
concerning advertising planning do not diverge to any substantial extent.
References
Abrahamson, E. (1996), “Management fashion”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 1,
pp. 254-85.
Alba, J. and Hutchinson, J. (1987), “Dimensions of consumer expertise”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 414-55.
Alpert, F. (1994), “Innovator buying behaviour over time”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 50-62.
Barry, T. and Howard, D. (1990), “A review and critique of the hierarchy of effects in
advertising”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 121-35.
Barthes, R. (1985), “The rhetoric of the image”, in Barthes, R. (Ed.), The Responsibility of Forms,
Hill and Wang, New York, NY, pp. 21-40.
Baskin, M. and Pickton, D. (2003), “Account planning: from genesis to revelation”, Marketing
Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 416-24.
Belch, G. and Belch, M. (2004), Advertising and Promotion, 6th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Brennan, R. (2004), “Should we worry about an ‘academic-practitioner divide’ in marketing?”, Ad-agency use of
Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 492-500.
advertising
Brierley, S. (1998), The Advertising Handbook, 3rd ed., Routledge, London.
models
Broadbent, S. (1992), 456 Views of How Advertising Works, Leo Burnett, London.
Brockman, B. and Morgan, R. (1999), “The evolution of managerial innovations in distribution:
what prospects for ECR?”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,
Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 397-408. 523
Bruner, G. and Hensel, P. (1998), Marketing Scales Handbook,Vol. 2, American Marketing
Association, Chicago, IL.
Bruthiaux, P. (1996), The Discourse of Classified Advertising: Exploring the Nature of Linguistic
Simplicity, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Caputo, A., Cucchiella, L., Fratocchi, P., Pelagagge, P. and Scacchia, F. (2002), “A methodological
framework for innovation transfer in SMES”, Industrial Management & Data Systems,
Vol. 102 No. 5, pp. 271-83.
Cohen, W. and Levinthal, D. (1990), “Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and
innovation”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 128-52.
Cook, G. (2001), The Discourse of Advertising, Routledge, London.
Cooper, J. (1998), “A multidimensional approach to the adoption of innovation”, Management
Decision, Vol. 36 No. 8, pp. 493-502.
Crosier, K. and Pickton, D. (2003), “Marketing intelligence and account planning: insights from
the experts”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 40-415.
Damanpour, F. (1991), “Organisational effectiveness: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants
and moderators”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 555-90.
Fairclough, N. (1989), Language and Power, Longman, London.
Fletcher, K., Wright, G. and Desai, C. (1996), “The role of organisational factors in the adoption
and sophistication of database marketing in the UK financial services industry”, Journal of
Direct Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 10-21.
Frambach, R. (1993), “An integrated model of organisational adoption and diffusion of
innovations”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 22-41.
Grant, I., Gilmore, C. and Crosier, K. (2003), “Account planning: whose role is it anyway?”,
Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 462-72.
Hackley, C. (2003), “Account planning: current agency perspectives on an advertising enigma”,
Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 235-45.
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R. and Black, W. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed.,
Prentice-Hall International, London.
Judge, W., Fryxell, G. and Dooley, R. (1997), “The new task of R&D management: creating
goal-directed communities”, California Management Review, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 72-85.
McCole, P. (2004), “Refocusing marketing to reflect practice: the changing role of marketing for
business”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 531-9.
McKenzie, C., Wright, S., Ball, D. and Baron, P. (2002), “The publications of marketing faculty –
who are we really talking to?”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36 Nos 11/12,
pp. 1196-208.
Martins, E. and Terblanche, F. (2003), “Building organisational culture that stimulates creativity
and innovation”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 64-74.
MIP Murphy, G. and Southey, G. (2003), “High performance work practices: perceived determinants of
adoption and the role of the HR practitioner”, Personnel Review, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 73-92.
24,5
Myers, G. (1999), Ad Worlds: Brands, Media, Audiences, Arnold, London.
Ottesen, G. and Grønhaug, K. (2004), “Barriers to practical use of marketing knowledge”,
Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 520-30.
524 Parente, D. (2000), Advertising Campaign Strategy: A Guide for Marketing Communication, 2nd
ed., Drydon Press, Orlando, FL.
Petty, R. and Cacioppo, J. (1986), Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes
to Attitude Change, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.
Ray, M. (1973), “Communication and the hierarchy of effects”, in Clarke, P. (Ed.), New Models for
Mass Communication Research, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Rogers, E. (1995), Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed., The Free Press, New York, NY.
Rossiter, J. and Percy, L. (1997), Advertising and Promotion Management, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Speece, M., Quang, T. and Huong, N. (2003), “Foreign firms and advertising knowledge transfer
in Vietnam”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 173-82.
Starkey, K. and Madan, P. (2001), “Bridging the relevance gap: aligning stakeholders in the
future of management research”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, p. S41.
Sundbo, J. and Gallouj, F. (2000), “Innovation as a loosely coupled system in services”,
International Journal of Services Technology and Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 15-36.
Swan, J., Newell, S. and Robertson, M. (2000), “The diffusion, design and social shaping of
production management information systems in Europe”, Information Technology &
People, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 27-45.
Tapp, A. (2004), “A call to arms for applied marketing academics”, Marketing Intelligence &
Planning, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 579-90.
Tesluk, P., Faar, J. and Klein, S. (1997), “Influences of organisational culture and climate on
individual creativity”, Journal of Creative Behaviour, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 21-41.
Tushman, M. and O’Reilly, C. (1997), Winning through Innovation: A Practical Guide to Leading
Organisational Change and Renewal, Harvard University Press, Boston, MA.
Vakratsas, D. and Ambler, T. (1999), “How advertising works: what do we really know?”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 26-43.
Vaughn, R. (1980), “How advertising works: a planning model”, Journal of Advertising Research,
Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 27-33.
Vestergaard, T. and Schroder, K. (1985), The Language of Advertising, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Walker, J. (1981), “The diffusion of knowledge, policy communities and agenda setting: the
relationship of knowledge and power”, in Tropman, J., Dluhy, M. and Lind, R. (Eds), New
Strategic Perspectives on Social Policy, Pergamon Press, New York, NY.
Williamson, J. (1978), Decoding Advertisements: Ideology and Meaning in Advertising, Calder and
Boyars, Boston, MA.
Zambardino, A. and Goodfellow, J. (2003), “Account planning in the new marketing and
communications environment (has the Stephen King challenge been met?)”, Marketing
Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 425-34.
Further reading Ad-agency use of
Colley, R. (1961), Defining Advertising Goals for Measured Advertised Results, Association of advertising
National Advertisers, New York, NY.
models
B. Slack resources
(1) If any of our departments concerned with the creative design of advertisements wanted
to expand its activities a substantial amount of resources would be available.
(2) We have people readily available to implement new approaches to the creative design of
advertisements and campaigns.
(3) Not all of the firm’s resources available for advertising campaign planning have been
fully committed.
Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.
Alternative Proxies: