Not all advertising that is appealing also entices consumers to buyBy Wolfgang KoschnickLikeability is the magic word in advertising par excellence. What appeals to consumers is what attracts them and leads them to buy a product. But it doesn't work that simply. Other factors have to be right for advertising to have a lasting effect. For example, the consumer's attitude towards the brand.
The largest advertising effectiveness study ever conducted worldwide has also caused the greatest confusion. The Copy Research Validity Project of the American Advertising Research Foundation (ARF) dragged on for over a decade. And when the findings from over 12,000 interviews were finally available at the beginning of the 1990s, most observers initially found the main result rather banal.
Because it says: the most important thing for the sales success of an advertising spot is that the audience likes it. Likeability is the factor that contributes most to the sales impact of advertising. The product or its quality is not nearly as important. If consumers like the advertisement, they will buy the product.
Well, said the Europeans. That may be the case with Americans. They have nothing more important on their minds than being popular with others. They learn that at school and vote for "the most popular girl" and "the most popular boy". Being liked is part of the American way of life. But in Europe, the clocks run differently.
Likeability also has the greatest impact in Europe
So this was also investigated in Europe. And lo and behold, the result was the same in Europe. This was recently proven by a study carried out last year by Lars Bergkvist from the Stockholm School of Economics on Swedish television and another study carried out by Ben Decock and Patrick De Pelsmacker from the University of Antwerp on Belgian television in 1999 and 2000. They all came to the same conclusion: nothing can predict the sales success of advertising as well as the fact that the audience likes it.
How did the Americans come to this realization in the first place? Actually, they wanted to do something completely different from advertising effectiveness research. The ARF Copy Research Validity Project was launched in the early 1980s to find out whether pretests - or more precisely, copy tests - could actually predict sales success.
The ARF was therefore not at all concerned with researching advertising impact, but solely with determining factors that can be used to predict the sales success of advertising. And the result was that liking or likeability is the factor with the greatest predictive power of all.
If you take a closer look, the findings are not all that exciting. In the test, respondents were each presented with five pairs of commercials. One of the two commercials had achieved very good sales in the real market situation, the other had not. However, the respondents did not know which commercial it was. Using a five-point scale, they had to indicate whether they liked the commercials ("I like the ad very much", "I like the ad", "I neither like nor dislike the ad", "I dislike the ad", "I dislike the ad very much").
The first two statements were seen as an expression of liking. And now it turned out that in 87 percent of all cases, the commercials that people liked were also the ones with the better sales success ("sales winners").
In the great enthusiasm, however, the subsequent public discussion also overlooked the fact that in 87% of cases, people also said that the commercial had told them something new about the product ("It told me something new about the product."). And in another 87 percent of cases, spontaneous ad recall was the reliable predictor of sales success.
So likeability isn't all that great either. And other factors also proved to be very impressive predictors in the ARF project, as the following overview shows: A closer look shows that likability is by no means the only factor with a strong effect. Product information and even good old advertising recall have just as strong an effect. Other factors such as the persuasiveness of the advertising were not even asked about.
But even with a critical eye, if the test subjects in the pre-test say that they like a commercial or an ad, then that's pretty good. However, no one had ever said the opposite before. So basically, not much has been gained.
Studies on the
Pleasantness runs wild
The fundamental role of likeability in advertising was first discovered in the US more than 15 years ago. In 1985, the Ogilvy Center for Research & Development (OCRD), San Francisco, conducted a study on "Likeable TV Advertising". The results showed that the more likeable consumers find an advertisement, the more likely they are to be convinced by its message.
Consumers who liked the TV commercials tested "very much" were almost twice as likely to be convinced of the quality of the advertised product than those who liked the commercials only "quite well" or who did not express an opinion. However, the majority of those who liked the commercials "very much" were still not convinced of the quality of the product. However, if they only liked the commercials "quite well" or had "no opinion" about them, the percentage of those who were not convinced increased significantly.
As early as the 1930s, Horace Schwerin conducted a study among American soldiers: Advertising messages that appeal to those being advertised to have a stronger effect than messages that do not appeal to them.
However, the jubilation about the powerful role of likeability in the effectiveness of advertising soon became mixed with a drop of bitterness. A study conducted by A. R. Kuse in 1991 with seven pairs of successful and less successful commercials found no correlation at all between likeability and "effectiveness in the marketplace". For this reason, the renowned market research institute Gallup & Robinson carried out another study in 1992, which quickly confirmed all the findings of the ARF study.
Nigel S. Hollis, head of research at the San Francisco-based Millward Brown Institute, set about sowing nagging doubts about the meaning of the likeability paradigm in 1995 in an essay entitled "Like it or Not. Likeability is Not Enough." (The Millward Brown researchers had found in their study that likeability exaggerated the sales success of advertising in many cases and understated it in others. According to Hollis, "enjoyability" and "involvement" proved to be much more reliable indicators.
In a meta-analysis, the two advertising researchers Steven P. Brown and Douglas M. Stayman also shook the belief in the success of appealing advertising. Brown and Stayman studied around 60 individual analyses and found that although attitude towards advertising does have an influence on sales success, this influence is often overestimated. Attitude towards advertising directly influences brand cognition. This in turn determines brand attitude ("attitude towards brand"). Thus, via the detour of brand attitude, likeability does play a certain role, but not a particularly large one.
And finally - as the two meta-researchers found out - the product category, existing attitudes towards brands and the advertising media are also important factors that influence the sales success of advertising. Thus, likeability as a guarantor for the sales success of advertising is gradually crumbling amidst the rollercoaster of contradictory research findings...
The Superbowl ad did not deliver what it promised
In his highly acclaimed book "Getting it Right The First Time", the most respected advertising researcher of our time, John Philip Jones from Syracuse University, presented completely different figures: Only 41 percent of the time are liking and brand recall likely to predict advertising sales success. This also means that in the vast majority of cases (59 percent) they do not. Even advertising recall is a much more reliable predictor at 54%. The unrivaled best predictor, however, according to Jones, is "brain processed advertising": Prediction rate: 91 percent.
Recently, doubts have been growing in the USA as to whether likeability is really such a unique predictor of advertising sales success. The Americans have taken on one of their national treasures and took a closer look at the effectiveness of advertising during the Super Bowl last year.
To their astonishment, they found masses of advertising that all respondents rated as extremely "likeable". But the sales figures for the corresponding products were downright paltry. There was a considerable number of commercials that people said were highly likeable, but when asked if they wanted to buy the advertised products, they said no. There was a large gap between likeability and purchase intent for many, but not all, products.
This means nothing other than the fact that likeability can only sometimes predict the sales success of advertising. But a statement that says: "Sometimes it works, but sometimes it doesn't" may be enough to describe the suitability of a Russian airplane. But it is useless as a scientific statement.
The motivational thrust leads consumers to buy
In Germany, the General Association of Advertising Agencies (GWA) and the Second German Television (ZDF) soon investigated the same subject area and came to similar findings as the ARF mentioned above: advertising that appeals to most consumers is also the most effective advertising. The liking, in turn, depends primarily on the entertainment value and less on the information value of an advertisement. Conversely, this also means that viewers also like commercials with an above-average sales impact.
This thesis was tested in a basic study conducted by GfK market research in Nuremberg in 1991, which focused on the appeal of commercials and their economic success. The study examined 985 commercials from all product categories in realistic viewing situations.
A commercial is effective if it stands out from the competition and also has the motivational power to draw viewers to the advertised brand. This is particularly important for long-term advertising impact. Under the pressure of the ever-increasing flood of advertising, consumers are increasingly willing to "zap away" program and advertising content that they do not like. Conversely, a commercial that appeals to consumers increases their willingness to watch it and therefore has a greater chance of getting its message across.
The clear analysis of likeability and assertiveness showed a relatively weak correlation. The analysis of the overall result by subgroup showed that the correlation between likeability and assertiveness is greater for men than for women and stronger for older people than for younger people. Broken down by product category, there were strong correlations between the two criteria in the areas of food, beverages, household goods and OTC products.
When using motivational thrust as an indicator for the sales effectiveness of an advertising spot, there was also only a very weak correlation between likeability and sales effectiveness.
In the second step, the study analyzed all commercials that have both a very high assertiveness and a very high motivational thrust, but also those commercials that have only a very low assertiveness and low motivational thrust.
Result: The average rating of these two groups differs fundamentally. Commercials that are particularly effective are liked more than average, and commercials that are not effective are not liked. Accordingly, commercials that are extremely well received are also much more effective than commercials that are extremely poorly received - the ten percent of commercials with the best or worst rating were analyzed in each case.
Likeability must never be used as an end in itself
A certain minimum level of acceptance is therefore necessary in order to have any chance of being effective. If this is not achieved, the consumer switches off, at least mentally. On the other hand, there are commercials that are so well received that they work on their own and, in extreme cases, lead to brand selection and brand switching.
While the factors responsible for liking a commercial are widely known, there is little evidence to distinguish commercials that are liked and effective from those that are liked but not effective.
To find this out, all commercials with high likeability were divided into two clusters: firstly, commercials with high likeability, high assertiveness and high "motivational thrust", and secondly, commercials with high likeability but low assertiveness and low "motivational thrust". These commercials were statistically examined using the database and subjected to a qualitative analysis.
Effective spots with high likeability are therefore characterized by the following features compared to ineffective spots with high likeability:
? In effective commercials, likeability is not an end in itself, but a means to an end. Conversely, ineffective commercials very often use beautiful images, especially children, animals, attractive actors or chic environments that are appealing but have no connection to the brand or brand personality. To a certain extent, the beautiful images replace the missing advertising idea. These commercials are often "creative". But this creativity is unproductive. It does not arise from the brand. To a certain extent, the commercials are "bathed in beauty" - but they are definitely bathed.
? With effective commercials, on the other hand, what consumers like dramatizes the specific characteristics of the advertised brand.
Whether a commercial is liked or not is therefore less important than what people like about it. In more scholarly terms: only the likeability that is productive for a brand is relevant. However, this finding is in stark contrast to the findings of the ARF study mentioned at the beginning, which are as follows: No matter what is liked, if it is liked, it works.
The ultimate royal road to brand personality
In order to answer the question of what characterizes commercials that are not liked but still effective, GfK divided the effective commercials (high assertiveness and high motivational thrust) into those with very high likeability and those with very low likeability.
According to the findings of this study, commercials that are not appealing but are nevertheless effective are characterized above all by the fact that they communicate a specific USP. The best recipe for success for an effective commercial is therefore a clear, relevant product benefit for consumers.
However, a genuinely independent product benefit of a product that is strikingly different from that of all comparable products is rarer than the blue Mauritius. As the products offer little room for differentiation due to their objective nature, advertising communication is in principle the ideal way to create independent brand personalities from interchangeable products.
To achieve this, however, the advertising must also be of original quality. Advertising that unimaginatively falls back on hackneyed clichés such as beautiful women or that worn-out lifestyle atmosphere for confectionery, cosmetics, food and almost everything that is aimed at young target groups can only backfire.
When analysing likeability, it is therefore advisable to ask: Does what is liked effectively dramatize a specific brand value or a specific brand world? Or are they largely executive elements such as beautiful music, nice actors, cute dogs, cute children or a generic lifestyle? The mere jingling of words and stylish images alone are useless, even if they appeal to consumers.
The compulsion for subjective selection is essential for survival
Against what theoretical background has the appeal of advertising attained the status it still has in the current debate? One of the environmental conditions under which market communication operates today is the information overload of the audience. In American advertising research, this is referred to as "information overload". Very little of the abundance of advertising that pours down on consumers is retained.
Perceptual psychology assumes that the total amount of environmental stimuli available to a person to absorb and process information is significantly greater than their needs or processing capacity. The oversupply of information forces subjective selection.
In the growing competition for information, only advertising messages that can prevail against the highly selective perception of consumers survive, because consumers almost always break off contact with an advertising message as soon as they dislike something about it. It makes relatively little difference whether they zap the advertisement away with the remote control or simply switch it off internally.
Advertising is therefore faced with the task of surviving in the flood of information and becoming effective even if it is received fleetingly and in fragments. It depends very much on how much inner involvement, how much interest a consumer shows in advertising. Advertising researchers speak of "involvement".
Two steps lead to advertising success
Consumers have little or no involvement in most everyday consumer goods and their advertising. If you buy a new car, you pay close attention to all the details. But someone who buys margarine only reaches into the shelf in passing.
Only a few involved consumers engage with the content of an advertising spot. They take in the information and emotional "value propositions" presented only fleetingly, carelessly and fragmentarily. The content of an advertising message can hardly give them any clues to form preferences for a brand.
They derive their preferences
The success of an advertisement depends above all on the external impression it makes on them. The appealing and entertaining design of the advertising material then determines the success of the advertisement much more than the comprehension of the message.
of the advertising message. In American advertising research, this is referred to as a "two-stage impact model":
Stage 1: The external design of the advertising appeals to the target audience; this leads to acceptance of the advertising medium.
Stage 2: This acceptance is transferred to the brand and the advertiser.
A brief digression into advertising psychology
In order to achieve preferences for a brand, it hardly matters what is said under the condition of "low involvement". Much more important is how something is said. The two American advertising psychologists Richard E. Petty and John T. Cacioppo refer to this style of advertising as the "peripheral way of influencing". Here, "liking" is of central importance.
According to this theory, there are two ways of influencing, one central and one peripheral. The central way of influencing leads to lasting and stable changes in attitude, while the peripheral way leads to an unstable change in attitude at best - and only if the influencing message is still mentally and actually present. The first prerequisite for the central way of influencing is the ability and motivation to actively and intensively process information.
Consumers with high involvement therefore do not base their judgment on secondary impressions, but on information that relates to essential characteristics of the product or service and is therefore central.
In contrast, when influencing recipients with low involvement, the peripheral way of influencing is chosen: Since the consumer is not sufficiently activated to think about the product at all and only takes in and processes information about it fleetingly, they have few points of reference for a rational product assessment.
He then allows himself to be impressed by trivialities such as the product's attractive appearance, appealing advertising or recommendations from people he likes (movie actors), even if these people are not factually competent. His attitude towards the product therefore depends largely on peripheral and more emotional impressions.
The late Werner Kroeber-Riel wrote: "The realization of the different effects of low-involvement and high-involvement advertising is almost a revolution in the views on advertising; it leads to the abandonment of a uniform model of effectiveness. Nevertheless, the practice still largely adheres to a uniform impact model. It also leads to a reversal of previous ideas about advertising impact. Ultimately, these have always been oriented towards advertising for highly involved recipients. According to these ideas, it is primarily the content of the advertising message, i.e. what is said, that is important. In advertising for less involved recipients, on the other hand, the external design, the emotional presentation, the how of the advertising is decisive for advertising success.
Predictors Correlation
with sales success
I like the ad (very much) 87%Told me something new
about the product 87%
Spontaneous advertising
recall 87%
Overall brand rating 84%
This ad is enjoyable 80%
Top-of-mind awareness 73%
Tells me a lot about how
the product works 73%
I learned a lot from this ad 73%
I find this advertising artistic 60%
Main point communication 60%
Source: Advertising Research Foundation (ARF)
How advertising really works
With this article by Allensbach journalist Wolfgang J. Koschnick, WerbeWoche continues its series of articles on advertising effectiveness research. Part 6 of this series of articles deals with the influence of the likeability of advertising on sales success.
Anyone with questions about aspects of advertising effectiveness research is welcome to send them to us ([email protected]). We will answer them to the best of our knowledge.
In selecting the topics for this series, Wolfgang J. Koschnick can draw on several hundred scientific studies on advertising impact that have been published in Germany and abroad over the past 50 years.
Further reading
Anyone interested in a literature list on the subject of likeability and advertising impact can obtain it free of charge from the editorial team of WerbeWoche (info@werbewoche). The list will be sent by
E-mail delivered.
Previous articles
Sex in advertising, (WW 38/ 00), How does humor work in advertising? (42/00), How does the environment influence the impact of advertising? (1/01), How does placement influence advertising impact? (14/01), Creativity and efficiency in advertising (18/01); Fear appeals in advertising (21/01).