Stage models no longer have a place in modern advertising effectiveness researchBy Wolfgang Koschnick Stage models of advertising effectiveness have had their day, because consumer behavior does not follow the linear awareness concepts of advertisers. What is needed are models that deal with the interaction between manufacturers, advertisers and consumers. An obituary for the original sin of advertising effectiveness research.
There is an iron law in advertising research: the biggest nonsense is the most persistent everywhere. Entire generations of advertisers have learned the same thing: attention is the starting point for any advertising effect. If advertising does not attract attention, it cannot be effective in the first place. But attention alone is not enough.
Advertising must also arouse interest. But you can't sell a single oat flake with the interest of the audience alone. Consumers must also be made to feel an urgent desire for the advertised object. And this desire must be so strong that consumers immediately rush to the nearest store and buy the product. Then advertising really has a wild and untamed effect.
At least that's what the much-quoted Aida formula would have us believe. Advertising works when
it triggers a defined sequence of perceptions and actions in the consumer: Attention - Interest - Desire - Action.
In fact, an overwhelming majority of advertising professionals are still convinced that the Aida formula is a somewhat simple but very concise description of the steps involved in advertising processes. Only recently, at the Publimedia annual conference at the Zurich World Trade Center, an agency touted a variant of the Aida formula as the philosopher's stone.
For a long time, advertisers paid little attention to science
However, advertising research would be in a very poor state if it had not developed any further since the Aida formula: Aida is more than 100 years old. The formula is so completely outdated and behind the times in terms of content and facts that you have to wonder why so many people still use it so enthusiastically today.
While advertising research has made progress, albeit not exactly with seven-league boots, advertising practitioners are still treading on the same ground in their assumptions about advertising impact that their grandfathers and great-grandfathers were stumbling around on 100 years ago.
In fact, the Aida formula was created in 1898 - at a time when there was no such thing as proper advertising effectiveness research. There wasn't even proper advertising because there were no saturated markets. At that time, there was only "advertising", and that was there to inform the public.
At the beginning of the 20th century, advertising companies did not give a damn about the findings of science. At that time, it was still considered absurd to implement any scientific findings at all in business management. Applied business and industrial psychology only gained a foothold in Europe around 1910. And that means that it only just got a foot in the door. It was not until the 1920s that a tentative bridge was built between science and business.
The formula was developed by the American E. St. Elmo Lewis not as an advertising effectiveness model, but as a guide for sales pitches. Lewis was president of the Broun-Green Company, a large printing company in Delaware. And all his worries revolved around the question of how he could get his sales representatives to achieve better sales. So he formulated a kind of guidebook.
He didn't come up with this as a formula and certainly wouldn't have dreamed that it would make him the progenitor of all graduated models of advertising impact. Because Lewis had nothing at all to do with advertising. He simply hammered into his representatives: "Attract attention, maintain interest, create desire and get action." That's how banal it was...
Incidentally, this is also crucial: the Aida formula was created through reflection, not empiricism or persistent research. This also applies more or less to all other step-by-step models in advertising. Someone has always sat down and pondered: "How could it possibly work from the point at which you start advertising until you reach the point at which the effect comes out in the end?"
Perhaps a new tiered model is emerging right now
Pure stage models differ from more complex advertising impact models in that they assume a hierarchical sequence of variables: Once you have reached one stage, you have to climb the next. All models are therefore based on the assumption that the target persons go through various stages of influence before they make their purchase decision. It's like hiking. Each step brings
one closer to the goal.
Each stage model assumes that the probability of a purchase increases with each additional stage reached by advertising measures. If it is possible to measure the effect of advertising on the individual stages, these can be used as operational goals on the way to advertising success.
Over time, the models became more and more complex and therefore more and more complicated. More and more impact factors were incorporated into them. In the end, there were models in which even the weather was taken into account as an influencing factor. But one thing always remained the same: nothing sensible ever came of it.
There are probably more than 100 advertising impact level models in use around the world. And there must be someone sitting in an office right now thinking up a new level model. The relentless proliferation of the models began when German university professors started to get to grips with them. They came up with the great idea: if you add one or two more to the sequence of effect factors in the old Aida and rename the old ones a bit, you get a new model. And you can become famous with it.
The sixties, seventies and eighties were the heyday of the stage model proliferation. It seems as if every marketing professor who was even the slightest bit self-respecting came up with a new stage model, which was of course named after him. And so there is a Behrens model, a Gutenberg model, a Kitson model, a Seyffert model, a Fischerkoesen model, a Wündrich-Meissen model and probably also a Müller, Meier, Schulze model and many, many other models.
Step-by-step models as cheap everyday wisdom
Some of them are truly exotic. In 1951, for example, Arthur Lisowsky developed a model that envisaged a step-by-step process of the advertising effect from the "seizure of meaning" to "soul winning" and "soul shaping" to "soul discharge". The entire gravity of Heidegger's world of thought and the mystical melancholy of German philosophy in general still overwhelm the viewer today.
Some models only needed three steps. Later, when many steps were already sold out, so to speak, more and more were added. In the end, even the old Aida model was not fine enough for the model builders. So in 1945, the two Americans Rowse and Fish first developed the Aidca and then the Aidcas model. With the Aidca model, "Confidence" (trust in the brand) was added in between, and with Aidcas, "Satisfaction" (satisfaction with the product) was also added at the end of the process.
All stage models are characterized and imbued with the spirit of the hunt: like a hunter, the advertiser circles his game - the consumer - and surrounds it in ever tighter circles. It starts very broadly with the arousal of attention and ends very narrowly with the fixation on a product, a brand.
The total arbitrariness of the individual stages and their consolidation into an overall work of art should have given cause for concern from the outset. A model like Aida, Aidca, Aidcas or Dagmar or whatever they are all called can be applied to an almost limitless number of human vicissitudes. With Aida, for example, you can answer the question: What do I have to do to teach my dog obedience? Or: What do I have to do to make drivers obey most traffic rules?
This is typical of all stage models: they are banal. They are trivial, and their levels are arbitrary and interchangeable. You can't do anything with them. They are cheap everyday wisdom, like the statement "Life is beautiful." The significance of stage models is still mercilessly overestimated today. That is the reason for their popularity.
The Dagmar model represented - at least apparently - a small step forward. It got its pretty girl's name from the title of a book published in 1961 by the American advertising researcher Russell H. Colley on behalf of the US Association of National Advertisers (ANA): "Defining Advertising Goals for Measured Advertising Results". After all, the model was based on the theory that advertising, in contrast to the economic goals to be realized through other sales policy instruments, had primarily communication tasks. That was something.
Step models serve at most as a checklist
Advertising goes through a hierarchy of stages in the realization of these tasks. As a new product is unknown, it must first achieve a high level of awareness. Once consumers have achieved this level, potential buyers must be given an understanding (comprehension) of what the new product actually is and what benefits it has for them. Once this has been achieved, the advertising in the next phase must create the conviction in potential buyers that they need to buy this product and no other. Then they just need to be persuaded to put this conviction into practice (action). Depending on the stage reached, according to the Dagmar model, advertising must therefore be geared towards achieving either awareness, comprehension, conviction or action.
of the advertising efforts.
Criticism of the stage models is primarily directed against the hierarchical structure: such a "chain reaction" cannot be assumed. There are contradictions in the sequence of the individual impact phases: In most cases, interests, purchase intentions, even purchase actions are not the result of attention to an advertising message, but conversely direct attention to information in the first place.
The individual levels should therefore be viewed as interrelated, equally important determinants of a certain behavior. However, the individual constructs are not equally important in all situations: for each product, for each target group, it would have to be checked which criteria actually have the greatest connection to purchasing behavior. Finally, psychological effects are also the result of the use of all marketing instruments, even if advertising sometimes dominates. Attitudes and preferences are not only influenced by advertising, but also by product quality, service, price and other factors.
In his critical analysis of the stage models, the late Saarbrücken scientist Werner Kroeber-Riel comes to the conclusion that "it is not really worth dealing with them, at least not if they are available in the original versions (designed as memorization formulas)". They then only have the "advantage of presenting an elementary checklist of advertising effects that can be triggered, which should not be overestimated".
In fact, the impact levels are not always mandatory in the proposed level models. For example, it is easily conceivable that attention depends on the level of awareness of a product or a previous purchase. The same applies to desires and emotional effects. It is easy to find examples of breaking through the sequence of stages. The various theories of purchasing decision processes (dissonance models, risk models, etc.) provide further starting points for the necessity of modifying stage models.
For a long time, complex models such as the Howard-Sheth model from 1969 were thought to be the egg of Columbus, although it was nothing more than a new edition of the old Aida formula garnished with a lot of scientific frippery - the scientific voodoo version of the good old formula, so to speak. His total explanatory approach has the character of an S-O-R model (stimulus-organism-response model).
After all, the theory developed by the two American market researchers John A. Howard and Jagdish N. Sheth is still considered by some to be the most comprehensive and detailed impact model developed to date.
Wooden paths of advertising research and stage models
As different as they may be in all their formulations, almost all stage models have one thing in common: attention always comes first. But why is the advertiser's attention so important? Why is it so important for advertisers? It is an obvious question when thinking about the process flow: If you want to make an impact on consumers, you first have to get them to set all their receptors to receive. That makes sense. And yet this is precisely where the numerous errors in thinking of classic advertising research begin.
Attention is the mediator between pure sensory perception and the recording of selected stimuli in short-term memory. Attention is the gatekeeper of perception. Without attention, nothing is perceived. At first glance, and sometimes even at second glance, this seems very plausible. But the flaw lies in the approach. And the approach is manipulative: how do I get consumers to buy my product?
It was precisely for this reason that the ideas of subliminal advertising as a "secret seductress" triggered such a great wave of enthusiasm in the 1950s: suddenly there was a theory that promised the advertising industry the prospect of freeing itself from the yoke of attention - after all, it assumed that consumer behavior could be controlled and manipulated at will without first having to gain their attention. But the dream of being able to penetrate and influence consumers' subconscious remained an illusion.
Following this disillusionment, global impact research took a second wrong turn. This was entirely compatible with the stage models, but was also based on a whole series of other errors in thinking: the theories of advertising impact borrowed from the psychology of learning emerged. They understand the process in the course of which advertising develops its effect as a learning process. Advertising works when the consumer has learned the advertising message. Consumers grasp the advertising message in the same way that schoolchildren gradually learn the grammar of a foreign language, cram vocabulary or, with difficulty, begin to understand mathematical forms.
Nobody buys a newspaper because of the colorful ads
The dilemma is exactly the same as with the tiered models and should still work like a Nuremberg funnel: advertising is put in "at the top" and the effect must come out at the bottom with the consumers. Consumers just have to be persuaded to learn the advertiser's message. And because that's not so easy, you have to teach them properly.
Anyone who thinks about it, however, has to ask themselves: how on earth could anyone ever come up with the crazy idea of interpreting the process of accepting advertising messages in analogy to the process of learning? Advertising research can hardly march in the wrong direction in a more fatuous way.
The very idea is absurd: learning grammar involves a conscious effort to learn. You can only learn if you do it consciously. Even if you don't feel like it, you must at least make an effort.
If you want or need to learn, you switch all your receptors to reception. With advertising, it's exactly the opposite: nobody buys a magazine to look at the beautiful, colorful ads. Nobody switches on the television to watch commercials.
On the contrary. There is a great danger that TV viewers will zap away the commercials because they want to see a movie and not advertising. Advertising never works because people want to see it, but always because they don't want to see it.
Interactions between sender, intermediary and receiver
According to Michael Ray, the "learning hierarchy" of awareness, comprehension, conviction and action is best applied to relatively new products that are very important to the respective consumers. And lo and behold: even the models originating from the psychology of learning are nothing more than stage models, nothing more than models at the level of the Aida formula.
In the case of relatively undifferentiated brands and products that are in the maturity phase of their
economic life cycle, the dissonant attribution hierarchy tends to apply, according to which product attitudes only change after a product has been purchased and product attributes have been learned. In the case of mature low-involvement products that are very similar to one another, action can result directly from perception. A change in attitude then only occurs at a later stage.
While the advertising researchers were still busily tinkering with their tiered models, the
A revolution in perceptions is gradually taking place in communication research. Since the 19th century, the prevailing opinion in the now enlightened society has been that the media directly influence their recipients. This is why it was always so important in many countries to observe how newspapers decided before elections: did they favor one candidate or the other? The idea behind this was that voters were guided by the recommendation of "their" newspaper. But they didn't and don't do that at all.
In the fifties, a radical turnaround took place.
from this previous perception. At that time, empirical attitude research - in particular the Yale group led by communications researcher Carl I. Hovland - recognized that all factors in the impact process - sender, medium and recipient - and not just the media alone, exert an influence on the thoughts and actions of the audience and thus the consumers. Applied to advertising, this insight means that the advertiser, the advertising medium, the advertising medium and the person being advertised to are all players in the impact process. The modern era took giant strides towards research into the effects of advertising.
What follows AIDA?
In the second part of this series of articles, Wolfgang J. Koschnick describes the more recent approaches in advertising effectiveness research and shows how the consumer has gradually become the focus of thinking about the impact of advertising. As a result, the research models were all turned on their heads.
How advertising works
With this article by Allensbach journalist Wolfgang J. Koschnick, WerbeWoche continues its series of articles on advertising effectiveness research. Part 9 of this series of articles deals with the stage models of advertising impact.
Anyone with questions about aspects of advertising effectiveness research can send them to us ([email protected]). We will answer them to the best of our knowledge.
Articles published so far
Sex appeal in advertising (WW 38/00); Humor in advertising (WW 42/00); How does the environment influence advertising impact? (WW 1/01); How does placement influence advertising impact? (WW 14/01); Creativity & efficiency in advertising (WW 18/01); Fear appeals in advertising (WW 21/01); Not all advertising that appeals also entices consumers to buy (WW 24/01); TV commercials with high entertainment value are more popular with consumers (WW 32/01).