IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecl/stabus/1578.html

Non-target Markets and Viewer Distinctiveness: The Impact of Target Marketing on Advertising Attitudes

Author

Listed:
  • Aaker, Jennifer L.

    (Stanford U)

  • Brumbaugh, Anne M.

    (Case Western Reserve U)

  • Grier, Sonya A.

    (Stanford U)

Abstract

This research examines the effect of target marketing on members of the advertiser's intended audience as well as members not in the target market: the "non-target market." The results of three experiments show that unfavorable non-target market effects are stronger for members of non-distinctive groups (e.g., Causasian individuals, heterosexual individuals), and that favorable target market effects are stronger fro members of distinctive groups (e.g., Africian-American individuals, homosexual individuals). The results of Experiment 2 demonstrate that the psychological processes by which target and non-target market effects occur differ by viewer group: felt similarity with sources in an advertisement drives target market effects for distinctive viewers, while felt targetedness drives target market effects for non-distinctive viewers. Finally, Experiment 3 shows that these consumer feelings of similarity or targetedness are associated with underlying processes of identification and internalization. Theoretical implications regarding the impact of distinctiveness theory in consumer persuasion effects, and potential social effects of target marketing are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Aaker, Jennifer L. & Brumbaugh, Anne M. & Grier, Sonya A., 2000. "Non-target Markets and Viewer Distinctiveness: The Impact of Target Marketing on Advertising Attitudes," Research Papers 1578, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    • Handle: RePEc:ecl:stabus:1578
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://gsbapps.stanford.edu/researchpapers/library/RP1578.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Friestad, Marian & Wright, Peter, 1994. "The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 21(1), pages 1-31, June.
    2. Aaker, Jennifer L & Williams, Patti, 1998. "Empathy versus Pride: The Influence of Emotional Appeals across Cultures," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(3), pages 241-261, December.
    3. Tepper, Kelly, 1994. "The Role of Labeling Processes in Elderly Consumers' Responses to Age Segmentation Cues," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 20(4), pages 503-519, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hyeong Kim & Thomas Kramer, 2006. "“Pay 80%” versus “get 20% off”: The effect of novel discount presentation on consumers’ deal perceptions," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 311-321, December.
    2. Torres, Ivonne M., 2007. "A tale of two theories: Sympathy or competition?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 197-205, March.
    3. Taeho YohAuthor-Name: Meungguk Park, 2015. "An Integrated Model of the Effective Television PSAs on Giving Behavior," International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Human Resource Management Academic Research Society, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, vol. 5(5), pages 233-247, May.
    4. Lee, Alice J. & Ames, Daniel R., 2017. "“I can’t pay more” versus “It’s not worth more”: Divergent effects of constraint and disparagement rationales in negotiations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 16-28.
    5. Suwelack, Thomas & Hogreve, Jens & Hoyer, Wayne D., 2011. "Understanding Money-Back Guarantees: Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Outcomes," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 87(4), pages 462-478.
    6. Jong Yoon Lee & Jae Hee Park & Jong Woo Jun, 2019. "Brand Webtoon as Sustainable Advertising in Korean Consumers: A Focus on Hierarchical Relationships," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-10, March.
    7. Skarmeas, Dionysis & Leonidou, Constantinos N., 2013. "When consumers doubt, Watch out! The role of CSR skepticism," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(10), pages 1831-1838.
    8. Fayyaz, Muhammad Shahzeb & Abbasi, Amir Zaib & Kumar, Sanjeev & Qureshi, Ammar & Hussain, Khalil & Muhammad, Lakhi, 2025. "Integrating digital influencer persuasion model and theory of planned behavior: The mediating role of consumer involvement in endorsed brands," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    9. Mark Groza & Mya Pronschinske & Matthew Walker, 2011. "Perceived Organizational Motives and Consumer Responses to Proactive and Reactive CSR," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(4), pages 639-652, September.
    10. Simonson, Itamar & Drolet, Aimee L., 2003. "Anchoring Effects on Consumers' Willingness-to-Pay and Willingness-to-Accept," Research Papers 1787, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    11. Román, Sergio & Riquelme, Isabel P. & Iacobucci, Dawn, 2023. "Fake or credible? Antecedents and consequences of perceived credibility in exaggerated online reviews," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    12. Rosbergen, Edward & Wedel, Michel & Pieters, Rik, 1997. "Analyzing visual attention tot repeated print advertising using scanpath theory," Research Report 97B32, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    13. Ryan W. Buell & Michael I. Norton, 2011. "The Labor Illusion: How Operational Transparency Increases Perceived Value," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(9), pages 1564-1579, February.
    14. repec:bcp:journl:v:9:y:2025:i:12:p:2937-2955 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Caldieraro, Fabio & Cunha, Marcus, 2022. "Consumers’ response to weak unique selling propositions: Implications for optimal product recommendation strategy," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 724-744.
    16. Fennell, Patrick B. & Coleman, Joshua T. & Kuo, Andrew, 2020. "The moderating role of donation quantifiers on price fairness judgments," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 464-473.
    17. Joëlle Vanhamme & Valérie Swaen & Guido Berens & Catherine Janssen, 2015. "Playing with fire: aggravating and buffering effects of ex ante CSR communication campaigns for companies facing allegations of social irresponsibility," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 565-578, December.
    18. Schraml, Christopher & Eggenschwiler, Matthias & Rudolph, Thomas, 2025. "Inspiring Customers Early: How Social Online Touchpoints in the Pre-Purchase Phase Drive Customer Inspiration and Purchase Decisions," OSF Preprints x7dsy_v1, Center for Open Science.
    19. María del Mar García‐De los Salmones & Andrea Perez, 2018. "Effectiveness of CSR Advertising: The Role of Reputation, Consumer Attributions, and Emotions," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 194-208, March.
    20. Caroline L. Noblet & Laura A. Lindenfeld & Mark W. Anderson, 2013. "Environmental Worldviews: A Point of Common Contact, or Barrier?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(11), pages 1-18, November.
    21. Zhuang, Mengzhou & Cui, Geng & Peng, Ling, 2018. "Manufactured opinions: The effect of manipulating online product reviews," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 24-35.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    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:ecl:stabus:1578. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gsstaus.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.