PMOTIVATING FACTORS IN ADVERTISEMENT FOR

BRAND RECOGNITION IN PRINT MEDIA

Umara Noreen
Foundation University Islamabad, Pakistan
umaranoreen@yahoo.com

Noor ul Islam
Foundation University, Islamabad. Pakistan
noor.mpa@gmail.com, noor_mpa@yahoo.co.uk

Pareesa Raza Khan

Foundation University, Islamabad. Pakistan
deeya.khan@gmail.com

Dr. Kashif UR-Rehman

Iqra University, Islamabad, Pakistan
dr.kashifurrehman@gmail.com

ABSTRACT

With the advent of internet, the current landscape of audience is becoming much more challenging for
the advertisers than ever. This challenge is exerting a great pressure on the established media such as
printed magazines, newspapers, and printed inserts. This research paper explores the most important
factors for brand recognition in print media. The canvas of this research paper is limited to the factors
important to the university graduates i-e brand recognition and purchase behavior with respect to age and
gender.

Perhaps the most distinctive skill of professional marketers is their ability to create, maintain, protect,
and enhance brand. Besides other important factors (such as product features, pricing strategies and
distribution channels) to attracts consumers for purchase the most important is the role of effective
advertisement.

The respondents of this research strongly agreed that product photographs, images, attractive colors,
model were the most attention getting factors. People usually like those ads whose meanings are clear
from the point of view of understandability and benefits believability. People regarded the best ad as
attention getting, informative, unique, and warm-hearted.

Overall, the management of brands through print media advertising is thought to be

critical. This has obvious implications for some of the current brand management
functions as the need for broader commercial awareness within this role grows.
Introduction
Advertising has been a vital part of business for centuries. Tradesmen signs existed during the early
Greek and Roman civilizations (Signs of the Times, 1976). Up to the middle of the 17th century,
advertising was exclusively an outdoor medium used to direct customers to local merchants. With the
widespread adoption of the printing press, local newspapers were published and carried classified
advertising. In the 19th century, enterprising merchants used the press and the postal system to print the
first commercial catalogs. America’s first catalog was produced in 1856 by the Orvis Fishing Company
(The Orvis Company, 2006).

Figure 1: Generic Model of Advertising’s Impact on Buyer Behavior

Sorce and Dewitz (2007) explains The generic model of Advertising’s Impact on Buyer Behavior.
(Figure 1). The model starts with advertising exposure, a measure of the target audience’s opportunity
to see the ad while consuming media This first stage is under the control of the advertiser, who
determines the message and selects the media and amount of market coverage (budget). Stage 2 is
controlled by the media consumer who is able to decide what information to accept. Stage 3 captures
the result of the consumer’s focal attention during Stage 2. If the ad was encoded, the message content
within the advertisement is represented by a change in the media user’s mental state. These
“intermediate effects” can be cognitive (a change in awareness, beliefs, or knowledge), affective
(emotional or attitudinal variables such as liking, preference or trust), or experiential (through
interactions with the product itself

1
In addition to recognition, branding may consist of building emotional responses (Volvo with a feeling
of safety) or cultural responses (Mountain Dew with youth). As consumers are bombarded with a
variety of products to meet the same need, branding provides a way for consumers to reduce their
decision making to consider only those products that they feel are relevant to them or that have met
their needs acceptably in the past. There is no question that a strong brand is an important corporate
asset. Brand equity cannot be measured in dollars and cents but rather it is a direct result of how
consumers value a brand based on their experiences and perceptions (Spaeth, 1993). It is these
experiences and perceptions that permit the brand to earn greater volume or margins than it could
without the brand name.
Brand Equity
The value of a brand as derived from consumer attitudes, behaviors, awareness, and perceptions. There
are many steps involved with building a brand’s equity including; brand awareness (unaided/aided),
brand attributes, message association, brand favorability, brand preference, and ultimately brand
loyalty. Each has an important role in moving a consumer towards a purchase and should be
understood in terms of their specific function.

Brand Awareness (unaided:)

Is the brand "top of mind" for the consumer?

Early Brand Awareness (aided):

Is the brand something that the consumer recognizes when presented with the name?

Early Brand Attributes

Is the brand cool? Hip? Intelligent? Good value? Stable? Innovative? etc.

Middle Message Association

Does the brand offer a specific value proposition to the consumer?

Middle Brand Favorability

Is the brand well-respected and appreciated beyond being known and even used?

Late Brand Preference

Where does the brand stand when consumers are asked to choose among a competitive set?

Late Brand Loyalty

Is the brand strong enough to keep consumers coming back for more?
After conversion most, if not all of these metrics are derived through attitudinal research. While loyalty
can be measured behaviorally, behavioral metrics alone cannot help marketers understand why
consumers act the way they do. Having the answer to the ‘why’ question, or what Duboff and Spaeth
call ‘true commitment,’ will identify the reasons for loyalty and as a result help marketers identify the
source of brand profitability (Duboff and Spaeth, 2000)

2
So how do you measure ad effects on brand equity components such as brand awareness, brand
familiarity, brand favorability, brand image, and brand loyalty? By definition, these metrics are
cognitive in nature and cannot be inferred from consumer behavior. As a result, marketing researchers
must derive the branding value of advertising through interviewing consumers.
While methodologies vary for different media, most involve the widely practiced exposed and control
methodology. In this design, the impact of an advertisement is isolated from other potential variables
through placing a sample of consumers into one of two groups; exposed to an ad or not exposed to an
ad. Both take a survey with questions regarding the test brand and differences between the two samples
are tested for statistical significance.
Print Media Advertising
During the 1960s, Alfred Politz conducted three classic studies to show the effectiveness of print
advertising. Each study took place in a controlled setting whereby specially prepared magazines were
left with consumers. These subjects were asked to review a magazine for editorial content and were
unknowingly exposed to varying numbers of test ads in these magazines. Later, consumers were asked
to rate the advertised brands on a number of dimensions (Kim, 1992). In all three studies Politz found:
Brand familiarity increased with number of exposures Claim familiarity and belief increased with the
number of exposures. Purchase intent increased with the number of exposures. Some critics of the
study cite the potential bias that results when experiments are conducted in a controlled setting. Since
the subject knows he/she is participating in an experiment, they may spend more time than they
normally would interact with the stimulus.

Discussion of Literature Review Findings:

The most influential findings were those that emerged from the Advertising Research Foundation's
(ARF) study of "Printed Advertising Rating Methods" (PARM). The original PARM investigation
produced recall and recognition scores for the same cross-section of ads that had appeared in a single
issue of Life magazine. Lucas (1960) examined how the mean level of these scores varied as the
interval between the respondents' last reading of the issue and the time of the readership interview
increased.
Wells (1964) found that reader interest was more strongly correlated (across ads) with recognition than
with recall. He also showed that recognition scores were more sensitive to the ad size and the use of the
color than were recall scores. Other evidence reported by Wells indicated that ratings of an
advertisement's "attractiveness" were more highly correlated with recognition than recall while the
reverse was true for ratings of” meaningfulness."

Bagozzi and Silk(1983) found that recall and recognition do not measure a single underlying memory
state. Rather, memory is multidimensional, and recall and recognition capture only a portion of
memory, while at the same time reflecting other mental states.

3
Measuring the impact of advertising has been a top concern of advertisers for over 100 years. A now
famous quote by John Wanamaker,* department store owner in the early 20th century, demonstrates
this point: “Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don’t know which half.”

Design, content and placement are of central importance. In an increasingly digital and online
environment, creativity and connecting with readers may well hold the key to retaining the attention of
the target audience for as long as possible. (Green, 2006)

When the economic environment becomes difficult, marketers demand proof of advertising’s
effectiveness, preferably in numerical terms. Unfortunately, few marketers can agree on what standards
advertising is expected to meet, or even what constitutes definitive proof. We are in such a period now.
In a time of recurring recession and in an environment of advancing globalization of companies,
products, and brands, many brands are experiencing low growth in unit volume and increasing
competition from private brands and generics ( Eechambadi, 1993). In this business climate, advertisers
want to know what they are getting for their advertising dollars. Industry researchers are often asked
whether academic research will provide answers.

In industry, interest appears to be growing in measures of advertising effectiveness that focus on

consumer response at the individual level (e.g., Lebenson & Blackston, chap. 8, this volume;
McDonald, 1993). However, responses to measures that offer rich and diagnostic insights into
consumer reactions can be difficult to obtain, particularly in samples large enough to provide reliable
assessments of ad effectiveness. One approach that has shown promise in this regard focuses on
consumers’ cognitive responses. As yet, however, very few studies have examined the predictiveness
of cognitive responses after a delay (but see Chattopadhyay & Alba, 1988), so not much is known
about the stability of cognitive responses and the degree to which they predict long-term advertising
effectiveness. Indeed, as Sawyer and Ward (1979) lamented, “little is known about the delayed effects
of advertising at the individual level” (Chattopadhyay & Alba, 1988, p. 1).
Advertising can exert a powerful retroactive effect on how consumers remember their past experiences
with a product. As Wells put it “Advertising helps consumers interpret these experiences. It suggested
what should be noticed. It provides cues and clues to help consumers understand and appreciate their
feelings. And in this way it can change the nature of the response” (1986) When advertising works in
this manner it can exert an insidious effect on consumer behavior.

Problem Statement:
There is always a gap between desired and current state which the researcher is trying to cover up.
Researcher wants to find out:
“What are the different motivating factors which contribute to brand name recall in print media?”
Area of the research has been narrowed down to the print media only to see the effects of those
motivating factors on brand name recognition and later purchase intent.

4
 Theoretical Frame Work

MV

Attention getting
factors in
advertisement

Descriptive Profile

Concept or feeling
associated with ad
Brand Recall

Understandability

Purchase Behavior

Relevancy

Believability

Motivation

IV Intervening variable DV

5
Hypothesis Development

Hypothesis -1

Ads having pictures are more motivating as compared to without pictures

Hypothesis -2

Ads containing familiar models are more motivating as compared to others.

Hypothesis -3

Ads having innovative designs are more motivating as compared to simple ones.

Hypothesis -4

Meaningful, believable, and relevant ads lead to better brand recall.

Research Design

The extent of scientific rigor in a research study depends on how carefully researcher chooses the appropriate
design alternatives taking into consideration its specific purpose. This is a form of hypothesis testing study because
it explains the nature of certain relationships or establishes the difference among groups or the independence of
two or more factors in a situation. In this study we want to see the variance in the dependent variables i-e brand
recall and purchase behavior with respect to age and gender. It is a form of field experiment and is conducted in a
noncontrived setting. For this one-shot or cross-sectional study, unit of analysis was graduates of university,
studying management sciences and information technology. “Non Probability Sampling” Further in non-
probability sampling, judgmental & convenience sampling was chosen.

Methodology

A survey was used to gather cross-sectional data because of relative efficiency. Data collection was done with the
help of questionnaires. Telephone interviews are not appropriate because of the nature of data which was to be
collected. 191 respondents filled up the questionnaire. Participants were shown five different ads labeled as Ad A,
Ad B, Ad C, Ad D and Ad E. These ads were chosen from different fashion magazines which are popular among
the university students and related to toiletries and cosmetics industry. Before selecting these ads for the actual
data collection an expert opinion was taken to offset the biasness of the researcher. A sample of 273 students was
taken, the ads were displayed and then questionnaires were distributed. The advertisement were rated on the basis
of different factors such as concept or feeling attached with the advertisement, factors in the advertisement
drawing attention. Last not least which type of ad overall is attractive to this particular sample.

6
Findings and Discussions

On the basis of the choice among different advertisement Ad A was the most favorite of all.
Almost 45% of the respondents liked it as the best advertisement. 22% favored for ad E, and
18% favored for ad B.

Which ad would you probably watch most often?

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Ad A 86 45.0 45.0 45.0
Ad B 36 18.8 18.8 63.9
Ad C 12 6.3 6.3 70.2
Ad D 15 7.9 7.9 78.0
Ad E 42 22.0 22.0 100.0
Total 191 100.0 100.0

Which ad would you probably watch most often?

100

80
Frequency

60

40

20

0 Mean = 2.4293
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 Std. Dev. = 1.6235
N = 191
Which ad would you probably watch most
often?

For the ad which was the best choice 59 % respondents comment that achievement and
success was closely associated with the particular ad.

7
 Achievement and success

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Not associated 13 6.8 6.8 6.8
somewhat associated 63 33.0 33.2 40.0
closely associated 114 59.7 60.0 100.0
Total 190 99.5 100.0
Missing System 1 .5
Total 191 100.0

acheivement and success

125

100
Frequency

75

50

25

Mean = 2.5316
Std. Dev. =
0 0.62281
0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 N = 190

acheivement and success

• Making smart choices was closely associated almost 60% commented.

8
 Making smart choices

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Not associated 10 5.2 5.3 5.3
somewhat associated 65 34.0 34.2 39.5
closely associated 115 60.2 60.5 100.0
Total 190 99.5 100.0
Missing System 1 .5
Total 191 100.0

making smart choices

140

120

100
Frequency

80

60

40

20
Mean = 2.5526
Std. Dev. =
0 0.59528
0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 N = 190

making smart choices

9
 • Caring for other was somewhat associated, 43% of the respondents answered that
about the ad which they had liked more.

Caring for others

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Not associated 30 15.7 15.8 15.8
somewhat associated 83 43.5 43.7 59.5
closely associated 77 40.3 40.5 100.0
Total 190 99.5 100.0
Missing System 1 .5
Total 191 100.0

caring for others

120

100

80
Frequency

60

40

20
Mean = 2.2474
Std. Dev. =
0 0.71037
0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 N = 190

caring for others

10
 Personal security, being a good parent, making a better world was not associated with the
ad.

The ad message was understandable, 59.7% strongly agreed. About believability 40% of
the respondents agreed.

The ad message is understandable

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid strongly disagree 1 .5 .5 .5
disagree 5 2.6 2.6 3.2
neutral 9 4.7 4.8 7.9
agree 60 31.4 31.7 39.7
strongly agree 114 59.7 60.3 100.0
Total 189 99.0 100.0
Missing System 2 1.0
Total 191 100.0

The ad message is understandable

120

100

80
Frequency

60

40

20
Mean = 4.4868
Std. Dev. =
0 0.75518
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 N = 189

The ad message is understandable

11
 • Almost 27% respondents were interested to buy the product after viewing the ad
which they had particularly liked.

After viewing i would consider purchasing the product

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid strongly disagree 4 2.1 2.1 2.1
disagree 15 7.9 8.0 10.1
neutral 53 27.7 28.2 38.3
agree 64 33.5 34.0 72.3
strongly agree 52 27.2 27.7 100.0
Total 188 98.4 100.0
Missing System 3 1.6
Total 191 100.0

After viewing i would consider purchasing the product

80

60
Frequency

40

20

0 Mean = 3.7713
Std. Dev. =
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 1.01107
N = 188
After viewing i would consider purchasing
the product

12
It was found that product photographs, images, attractive color, innovative designs were
the most attention getting factors.

Images were attention getting factor

140

120

100
Frequency

80

60

40

20
Mean = 2.5767
Std. Dev. =
0 0.56558
0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 N = 189

Images were attention getting factor

Attractive colors were attention getting factors

140

120

100
Frequency

80

60

40

20

0 Mean = 2.672
Std. Dev. =
0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 0.54412
N = 189
Attractive colors were attention getting
factors

13
 Model is attention getting factor

125

100
Frequency

75

50

25

Mean = 2.5714
Std. Dev. =
0 0.65349
0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 N = 189

Model is attention getting factor

The ad is attention getting, informative, unique, memorable, warm-hearted and honest.

Innovative designs were attention getting factors

120

100
Frequency

80

60

40

20

0 Mean = 2.3069
Std. Dev. =
0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 0.70786
N = 189
Innovative designs were attention getting
factors

14
Almost 54% strongly agreed that ad was attention getting, 36 % agreed and 5.8% were
neutral.

The ad is attention getting

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid strongly disagree 4 2.1 2.1 2.1
disagree 1 .5 .5 2.6
neutral 11 5.8 5.8 8.5
agree 69 36.1 36.5 45.0
strongly agree 104 54.5 55.0 100.0
Total 189 99.0 100.0
Missing System 2 1.0
Total 191 100.0

The ad is attention getting

120

100

80
Frequency

60

40

20

Mean = 4.418
0 Std. Dev. = 0.8055
N = 189
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

The ad is attention getting

15
Conclusion

The purpose of this research has been to determine the most important factors for
brand recognition in print media advertising. It was accomplished by asking the
university graduates how effective print advertising is as compared to other media. It
was concluded that print advertising plays a necessary role in the advertising mix for a
myriad of marketing situations. Based on this research we may conclude that product
photographs, images, attractive colors, innovative designs and model are the most
attention getting factors in print media advertising. People liked those ads more which
had clear understandability& benefits believability and they remember these ads as
honest and warm-hearted.

References:
Bagozzi P, R., and Silk J, A., (1983) “Recall, Recognition, and the Measurement of Memory
for Print Advertisements” Marketing Science, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 95-134
http://www.jstor.org/stable/184113 (last accessed: 28/06/2008)

Green, A., (2006) “What are the key factors contributing to the effectiveness of my
print advertising”? WARC Media FAQ.

Hoffman, H.,(1992). “Does Advertising Work: A Review of the Evidence.” The Journal of
Consumer Marketing, “Statistics Explained.” The Animated Software Company, 2001.
Kim, Peter. 9, 4 (1992): 5-19.

LaTour, B., Tour La, A., (2004) “Assessing the Long-term Impact of a Consistent Advertising
Campaign on Consumer Memory” Journal of Advertising,

LaTour, B., Tour La, A., (2004) “How and When Advertising Can Influence Memory for
Consumer Experience” Journal of Advertising, .

Lucas, D. B. (1960), "The ABCs of ARF's PARM," Journal of Marketing, pp. 9-20.

Signs of the Times. (1976, September). A brief history of the sign industry.,
http://www.signmuseum.com/exhibits/histories/brfhist/briefhistory.html (last accessed on
06/08/2006)

16
Sorce, P., Dewitz, A., (2007), “The Case for Print Media Advertising in the Internet Age” A
Research Monograph of the Printing Industry Center at RIT Rochester

Spaeth, J.,(2001) “Brand Equity and Advertising; Lessons from Jimi Hendrix.” Advertising
Research Foundation Internet Direct Marketing and Advertising Services..
Wright, G. A. (2005). Breaking the ceiling on direct marketing response through testing
initiatives. http://gawright.com/resources/index. (last accessed on 10/06/2008)

Stafford, M. R., Lippold, E. M., & Sherron, C. T. (2003, June). The contribution of direct
mail advertising to average weekly unit sales. Journal of Advertising Research, 43(2),
pp. 173–179.

The Orvis company. (2006). Vermont Liviing Magazine. http://www.vtliving.com/orvis/ (last

accessed on 06/08/2006)

Wells, W. D. (1964), "Recognition, Recall, and Rating Scales," Journal of Advertising

Research, Vol. 3, pp. 2-8.

Xia, L., & Monroe, K. (2005). Consumer information acquisition. In Naresh K. Mahotra
(Ed.), Review of marketing research. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

17