IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iim/iimawp/wp2010-08-01.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An Eye for an Eye: Impact of Sequelization and Comparison in Advertisements on Consumer’s Perception of Brands

Author

Listed:
  • Banerjee, Bibek
  • Chakrabarty Patrali

Abstract

In this paper we demonstrate that the positive effects of comparative advertising are significantly diluted when a compared-to brand retaliates. Retaliation introduces sequencing in advertisements. We therefore evaluate sequelized advertisements (both comparative and noncomparative) alongside comparative advertisements and ordinary advertisements. We show that, given no threat of comparative advertising from competitors, sequelizing a popular advertisement may be as potent as comparative advertising, in terms of improving consumers’ recall as well as preference for the sponsored brand. Furthermore, an advertisement message may be directed at core benefits (and/or attributes) that a brand promises, or at a stylized theme or storyline that use peripheral cues to indirectly convey the brand’s deliverables. We incorporate this dimension of communication focus and conclude that while comparative advertisements are more effective with objective messages, noncomparative sequelized advertisements work better with thematic or story based messages.

Suggested Citation

  • Banerjee, Bibek & Chakrabarty Patrali, 2010. "An Eye for an Eye: Impact of Sequelization and Comparison in Advertisements on Consumer’s Perception of Brands," IIMA Working Papers WP2010-08-01, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
  • Handle: RePEc:iim:iimawp:wp2010-08-01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://web.iima.ac.in/assets/snippets/workingpaperpdf/2010-08-01Banerjee.pdf
    File Function: English Version
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Celsi, Richard L & Olson, Jerry C, 1988. " The Role of Involvement in Attention and Comprehension Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(2), pages 210-224, September.
    2. Nedungadi, Prakash, 1990. " Recall and Consumer Consideration Sets: Influencing Choice without Altering Brand Evaluations," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(3), pages 263-276, December.
    3. Ravid, S Abraham, 1999. "Information, Blockbusters, and Stars: A Study of the Film Industry," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 72(4), pages 463-492, October.
    4. Smith, Vernon L, 1982. "Microeconomic Systems as an Experimental Science," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(5), pages 923-955, December.
    5. van Dijk, Frans & Sonnemans, Joep & van Winden, Frans, 2001. "Incentive systems in a real effort experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 187-214, February.
    6. Gresham, Larry G. & Bush, Alan J. & Davis, Robert A., 1984. "Measures of brand attitude: Are cognitive structure approaches really needed?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 353-361, September.
    7. Greenwald, Anthony G & Leavitt, Clark, 1984. " Audience Involvement in Advertising: Four Levels," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(1), pages 581-592, June.
    8. Pechmann, Cornelia & Stewart, David W, 1990. " The Effects of Comparative Advertising on Attention, Memory, and Purchase Intentions," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(2), pages 180-191, September.
    9. Pechmann, Cornelia & Ratneshwar, S, 1991. " The Use of Comparative Advertising for Brand Positioning: Association versus Differentiation," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(2), pages 145-160, September.
    10. repec:cup:apsrev:v:87:y:1993:i:02:p:267-285_09 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Demirdjian, Z S, 1983. " Sales Effectiveness of Comparative Advertising: An Experimental Field Investigation," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(3), pages 362-364, December.
    12. Falk, Armin & Fehr, Ernst, 2003. "Why labour market experiments?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 399-406, August.
    13. Mohanbir S. Sawhney & Jehoshua Eliashberg, 1996. "A Parsimonious Model for Forecasting Gross Box-Office Revenues of Motion Pictures," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(2), pages 113-131.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:iim:iimawp:wp2010-08-01. 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: (). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/eciimin.html .

    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 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.

    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.