IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Choice Versus Chance: Using Brand Equity Theory to Explore TV Audience Lead-in Effects, A Case Study


  • Walter McDowell
  • John Sutherland


The business of broadcasting is the selling of audiences to advertisers. In addition to cultivating popular program content, broadcasters know that proper scheduling can also be an important factor in attracting audiences. The implication is that programs acquire audiences by chance as well as by choice. Recognizing the potent influence of lead-in programming on the ratings performance of television programs, the purpose of this study was to explore the plausibility of applying brand equity theory to electronic media and to offer a tentative explanation of the considerable variances found in lead-in effects research studies. Adapting the essential components of an established brand equity model, the researchers propose that program brand equity is revealed in the differential ratings response of a program to its direct competitors and to its lead-in programming. The daily ratings of three 11:00 p.m. newscasts and their respective lead-ins were analyzed using one station as an equity criterion. Several hypotheses were supported within a case study format.

Suggested Citation

  • Walter McDowell & John Sutherland, 2000. "Choice Versus Chance: Using Brand Equity Theory to Explore TV Audience Lead-in Effects, A Case Study," Journal of Media Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(4), pages 233-247.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:jmedec:v:13:y:2000:i:4:p:233-247
    DOI: 10.1207/S15327736ME1304_3

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Gomes, Orlando, 2006. "The dynamics of television advertising with boundedly rational consumers," MPRA Paper 2847, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jmedec:v:13:y:2000:i:4:p:233-247. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Chris Longhurst). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.