Advertising Creativity Matters

MICAEL DAHLEN Stockholm School of Economics micael,dahlen@hhs.se SARA ROSENGREN Stockholm School of Economics sara.rosengren@hhs,se FREDRIK TORN Stockholm School of Economics fredrik,torn@hhs.se

Could "wasteful" advertising creativity that does not add to the functionaiity of the advertisement (i.e., it neither enhances recaii and iiking of the advertising, nor increases comprehension and persuasiveness of the communicated message) be useful? An exprimentai study shows that it can. By signaling greater effort on behaif of the advertiser and a greater ability of the brand, advertising creativity enhances both brand interest and perceived brand quaiity. The effects are mediated by consumer-perceived creativity, suggesting that consumers are important Judges of creativity. Bringing advertising creativity into new iight, the resuits provide impiications for the development, measurement, and positioning of creative advertising.

INTRODUCTION

There is no guarantee that creativity in an advertisement makes it more memorable or appealing to consumers (Kover, Goldberg, and James, 1995). In fact, research by, for example, Kover, James, and Sonner (1997) suggests that many creative advertising efforts may be wasted, in the sense that they do not add to the functionality of the advertisement (i.e., they neither enhance consumer recall and liking of the advertising, nor increase comprehension and persuasiveness of the communicated message). However, this article argues that such wasteful advertising creativity may have other positive effects. Previous research on advertising spending has found that, when bypassing functional aspects of high spending, for example, that bigger advertisements increase attention or that repeated exposures facilitate comprehension and breed liking, wasteful expenses have positive effects on brand perceptions (e.g.. Ambler and HoUier, 2004; Kirmani and Rao, 2000). The present research investigates whether or not the same conclusion follows with respect to advertising creativity. A common view is that creativity is a mission of the entire advertising industry, its raison d'tre (Koslow, Sasser, and Riordan, 2003). The fact that 3 9 2 JDBOIIL OF (IDERTISinG BESEflRCH September 2 0 0 8

advertising agencies spend a great deal of time and energy competing for creative awards, even though they are not sure that these efforts actually increase the functionality of their work, suggests that creativity is perceived to be important in its own right (e.g., Helgesen, 1994; Kover, James, and Sonner, 1997). In a frequently cited study. Gross (1972) showed that wasteful advertising creativity in advertising agencies, in the form of an abundance of creative ideas, yield more effective advertisements in the long run. This article takes the notion of wasteful advertising creativity to the level of the individual advertisement to see whether an abundance of creativity (that does not enhance functionality) in a single advertisement yields positive effects. Building on the research on marketing signals, we suggest it does. Studies show that the very employment of various marketing elements, such as warranties (long-lasting) or price (correlates with quality), sends signals about the brand that guide consumer evaluations and choice (e.g., Kirmani and Rao, 2000). Advertising expense has been found to be a signal that consumers interpret as the marketers' efforts due to their belief in the brand (Kirmani, 1990; Kirmani and Wright, 1989) or as proof of the brand's superiority or "brand
DOI: 10.2501/S002184990808046X

ADVERTISING CREATIVITY MHERS

fitness" (Amhler and Hollier, 2004): The greater the expense, the more confident the marketer and the more fit the brand. Categorizing advertising creativity as a marketing signal, we expect that greater creativity signals more effort (as creative advertising is harder to produce than "nofrills" advertising) and greater fitness (as the sender must have the knowledge resources to take the extra communicative leap and communicate in a nontraditional marmer) and thus produces more favorable brand perceptions. By investigating the signaling effects of advertising creativity on brand perceptions, we bypass the functional aspects that have previously been in focus in creativity research. Previous research focuses on intermediate effects such as advertising recall, liking, and comprehension (e.g., Kover, James, and Sonner, 1997; Stone, Besser, and Lewis, 2000; Till and Baack, 2005), or different facets of creativity, such as originality, meaningfulness, and emotions (e.g., Ang and Low, 2000; Kover, Goldberg, and James, 1995; White and Smith, 2001). As advertising (and creativity) can take many shapes and forms, it is not very surprising that most authors seem to agree that the research on advertising creativity to date is troubled by contradictory and inconclusive findings (e.g., ElMurad and West, 2004; Koslow, Sasser, and Riordan, 2003: Stone, Besser, and Lewis, 2000). For instance, some (awardwinning, which is often the criterion in these studies) creative advertising may be very original and yield high recall, but low liking, whereas other advertising could produce strong emotions and liking, but be harder to recall. Avoiding such obstacles may be achievable by focusing on creativity as a signal in itself, rather than its facets and intermediate effects. The present study includes a number of elements that are novel to advertising creativity research. First, rather than using

real advertisements as representatives of more versus less creative advertising, the study manipulates advertising creativity in the same manner as Ambler and Hollier (2004) manipulate advertising expense. Thus, we are able to compare advertising for the same brands with the same messages and control for the functionality of the tested advertisements. Most research to date has employed real advertisements, which makes it harder to discern the effects of the creativity in itself, as it also becomes a matter of different brands with different messages. Second, our manipulation does not produce creative advertising that is "outstanding," but rather moderately creative. As noted by Haberland and Dacin (1992), the focus on awards creates a dichotomous view of advertising as creative yes/no. It is more likely that advertising varies in its degree of creativity. Not all advertisements win prizes for creativity, but that does not mean that those advertisements are not creative. Third, in addition to manipulating advertising creativity, we also measure consumer-perceived creativity. Previous research has usually kept the degree of creativity "hidden" from consumers, utilizing awards and expert judgments as assessments of creativity. Whereas advertising effects materialize to a considerable degree without consumer awareness (e.g.. Heath and Nairn, 2005), the present study tests the notion that consumer explicit thoughts about advertising creativity matter.
ADVERTISING CREATIVITY AS A MARKETING SIGNAL

vertising expense is the marketing signal that has gained most attention in advertising research. According to Kirmani and Wright (1989), advertising expense is an indicator of marketing effort: The more money spent on advertising, the greater the effortmeaning that the advertiser must really believe in the product. Spending a great deal of money on advertising is a more powerful signal to consumers about the quality of the product than the content of the advertising, as the advertiser "put their money where their mouth is." More money means greater risk, and thus consumers feel safe that the advertiser will deliver on her promise (Kirmani, 1997). In tests of advertising expense, Kirmani (1990,1997) manipulates advertising sizes, colors, endorsers, and repetition and finds that they may all increase perceived marketing effort. Interestingly, Kirmani (1990) notes that it is possible that perceived advertising quality ("includes the care and creativity used to design the ad") could also have an effect on perceptions of marketing effort. However, Kirmani (1990) does not manipulate advertising quality (and more specifically, advertising creativity). Such a manipulation would result in perceptions of greater marketing effort. Coming up with a creative concept is more demanding for the advertiser than simply applying a standard solution based one's own or others' previous efforts. Consumers are "advertising literate" enough today to infer that creative advertising is probably the result of a development process that is both longer and more costly (they may even refer this to the employment of a "fancy advertising agency"). HI: Advertising creativity increases perceived marketing effort.

Most markets are flooded with products for consumers to choose between. As consumers are unable to sample all products that are available to them, or even assess the quality of all the products they have actually consumed, they rely on marketing signals (Kirmani and Rao, 2000). Ad-

Ambler and Hollier (2004) suggest that advertising expense may not only serve

September 2 0 0 8 JDUIIOIIL OF HDUERTISIOG RESEHRCH 3 9 3

ADVERTISING CREATIVITY IVIATTERS

An extra degree of creativity may send signais about tiie advertiser tiiat rub off on consumer perceptions of tiie brand.
as a signal of effort, but also as a more direct signal of "brand fitness." Referring to the biological theory of handicapping, they argue that advertising expense may be a signal of wealtharguably, the advertiser can afford such wastefully expensive advertising. The wealth, in tum, could be interpreted as proof of previous success due to the brand's great ability to serve the market. Extending the reasoning to advertising creativity, wasteful creativity (i.e., the surplus creativity that does not add to the functionality of the advertisement) could work as a signal of wealth as well, wealth in the form of knowledge and smartness. For example, the literature on rhetorical figures (which are a form of wasteful creativity as they convey n\essages in unnecessarily clever ways) suggests that they may signal smartness on behalf of the sender (e.g., Toncar and Munch, 2001, 2003). However, this notion has not been tested. Ambler and Hollier's (2004) concept of "brand fitness" is especially interesting in light of the growing body of research on perceived corporate ability. Perceived corporate ability refers to consumers' beliefs that the company is able to improve the quality of existing products and to generate new products innovatively (Luo and Bhattacharya, 2006). Studies show that perceived corporate ability influences the success of new-product introductions and marketing activities, as well as the market value of the entire company. In fact, perceived corporate ability may be the most powerful source of sustainable competitive advantage (Brown and Dacin, 1997; Luo and Bhattacharya, 2006). Advertising creativity could be a signal of brand ability (the equivalent of corporate ability on the individual, advertised, brand level). Coming up with a creative advertising concept signals the ability and desire to "think outside the box" and think in new and different ways compared to the competition and compared to the brand's history. Thus, advertising creativity says less about the brand's historical success and more about what could be expected from it in the future. H2: Advertising creativity increases customers' perceived abuity in the brand.

the advertiser (e.g., Kirmani and Rao, 2000). Perceived brand ability would also signal high quality, as cor\sumers expect the brand to improve quality over the competition. Therefore, the hypothesis is that advertising creativity enhances perceived brand quality. H3: Advertising creativity enhances customers' perceptions of brand quality.

ADVERTISING CREATIVITY'S EFFECTS ON BRAND PERCEPTIONS

Recent advertising literature argues that the most important and reliable measures of advertising effectiveness are consumers' perceptions and experiences of the brand rather than of the advertising itself. This influence is due to the facts that consumers are not able to remember or discern all the advertising they encounter (e.g.. Heath and Nairn, 2005; Weilbacher, 2003). Powerful advertising affects consumers' perceptions of the brand immediately (Hall, 2002). As creativity is supposed to make powerful advertising, the expectation is that more versus less powerful advertising results in immediate effects on brand perceptions. The main brand perception that has been uncovered in previous studies of marketing signals is perceived quality. As mentioned previously, perceived marketing effort signals confidence on behalf of

Conventional wisdom holds that creative advertising pushes the message into consumers' minds (e.g., El-Murad and West, 2004; Kover, James, and Sonner, 1997). However, recent literature argues that the individual brand does not really have much to say (e.g., Ehrenberg, Barnard, Kennedy, and Bloom, 2002; Heath and Nairn, 2005). In the massive marketspace and mindspace competition, it is increasingly difficult to be unique and virtually impossible to persuade consumers to buy your product (Weilbacher, 2003). In line with this notion, a survey among top-level agency cratives ranked the sameness among brands as the number one reason for improved creativity; rather than communicating a specific message (which is likely to resemble competitors'), advertising creativity must make the brand interesting and exciting (Reid, Whitehill King, and DeLorme, 1998). This goal is particularly relevant to established brands, which make up the majority of the marketplace. The greatest enemies to these brands are predictability and consumer disinterest (Machleit, Allen, and Madden, 1993). Brands must continuously reinvent themselves and challenge expectations to stay in touch with consumers. This touch could be achievable with creative advertising. Creative advertising in itself suggests that the brand has something interesting to offer, as it signals effort and confidence, and ability to deliver

3 9 4 JOIIIlflL DfflDERTISinGRESEflRCH September 2 0 0 8

ADVERTISING CREATIVITY MHERS

something different from the competition. Therefore, the study expects a positive relationship between advertising creativity and brand interest. H4: Advertising creativity enhances brand interest.

of this "hidden tool," or if consumer perceptions of advertising creativity are necessary and mediate the effects. The hypothesis is that consumer perception of the advertising creativity is the first step in the process that leads to all the hypothesized effects in H1-H4: H5: The effects of advertising creativity are mediated by consumerperceived creativity.

Research instrument development

CONSUMERS AS JUDGES OF ADVERTISING CREATIVITY

Most research on advertising creativity conceptualizes it as a "hidden tool" for advertising professionals to create powerful advertising. That is, it is important that the professionals perceive the advertising to be creative for it to be effective, but consumers are not supposed to think in such terms, rather just to like the advertising, remember it, and select the brand (e.g., Koslow, Sasser, and Riordan, 2003; Stone, Besser, and Lewis, 2000; Till and Baack, 2005). However, a professional judgment of advertising creativity is no guarantee that the advertising will be successful (e.g., Kover, James, and Sonner, 1997). For instance. Stone, Besser, and Lewis (2000) found that while 70 percent of the advertising that consumers remembered and liked was categorized as creative by trained judges, 47 percent of strongly disliked advertising was also categorized as creative by the judges. White and Smith (2001) compare creativity ratings between advertising professionals and the general public and found that the two groups differed in their ratings. The question is, who is the better judge? Kover, James, and Sonner (1997) argue that less professionalism is needed in the judgments of creativity, as at the end of the day, consumers' perceptions are what matter. The present study puts this argument to the test by testing whether manipulated advertising creativity (pretested on advertising professionals) has a direct effect on our hypothesized variables, without consumers being aware

METHOD

To test the hypotheses, we must be able to compare responses between consumers who have been exposed to a more creative versus a less creative advertisement for the same brand with the same message. Furthermore, to test with certainty whether consumer-perceived advertising creativity is an intervening, mediating step between manipulated creativity and our hypothesized effects, we must measure creativity perception before versus after the other variables (for H5 to hold, creativity perception should have a greater effect when measured before the other variables, cf. Kenny, 1975). To this end, we chose a 2 (more creative/less creative advertisement) X 2 (perceived creativity before/after) experimental design where informants were randomly assigned to one of the four cells. To avoid stimulus specific effects, four different brands and accompanying messages were used for a total of 16 experiment cells. All four brands are established and well known in their respective product categories (pain relief, coffee, vodka, and condoms). We chose well-known brands for two reasons. First, the majority of advertising in major media are for established brands (e.g., Kent, 2002). Second, as consumer perceptions of wellknown brands are harder to influence than those of unfamiliar brands, the test brands make a more robust test of our hypotheses.

Similar to Ambler and Hollier (2004), we wanted to ensure that only the wastefulness of creativity would differ between advertisements, not their functionality with respect to what was communicated. Therefore, we needed to develop advertising stimuli differing only with respect to the creative execution. To this end, a method similar to that of Toncar and Munch (2003) was used. Four pairs of print advertisements were developed, one pair for each brand. Print advertisements usually have three main elements: the brand, text, and pictorial. In our manipulation, the brand and the pictorial was kept constant, while the text was varied to communicate the same message in a more (employing rhetorical figures, cf. Tom and Eves, 1999) or less (without rhetorical figures) creative way. The number of words was kept constant. The advertisements were pretested to make sure that the pairs communicated the same message, and equally strongly. Twenty plus twenty consumers from the target population (below) were asked "how well do you agree that the advertisement's main message is. .." and rated one of the advertisements from each pair on a scale of 1 = totally disagree/ 7 = totally agree. There were no significant differences within the pairs
(A^more creative = 5.4 verSUS Mjess creative =

5.5). Next, 12 plus 12 advertising professionals from eight major agencies rated one of the advertisements from each pair on creativity (scale: 1 = not at all creative/ 7 = very creative). The more creative advertisements rated significantly higher than the less creative advertisements
(Mmore creative = 4.0 verSUS Mjess creative =

2.7, p < 0.01). Notably, although significantly different from each other, neither of the two groups of advertisements was seen as particularly creative. However,

September 2 0 0 8 JOURIIIIL OF HDUERTISIOG RESERRCH 3 9 5

ADVERTISING CREATIVITY MHERS

By focusing too much on award-winning advertising and treating creativity as a yes/no variabie, one misses out on ail the improvements that can be made and effects that can be attained at more moderate levis.
we are not interested in the absolute levels of creativity; the goal is to compare differences in degree of creativity. This approach differs from most previous research, which often employs "outstanding" (award-winning) creative advertisements. The fact that the degree of creativity is fairly low in our more creative advertisements makes our test of the effects of advertising creativity more robust. It also makes the results more applicable in practice, as most advertisements do not win awards, but may still be creative (e.g., Haberland and Dacin, 1992; Kover, James, and Sonner, 1997).
Procedure

"How much do you think development of the advertisement cost?" (1 = very cheap/7 = very expensive), and "How much time do you think has been devoted to the development of the advertisement?" (1 = very little/7 = very much). We included the variables both separately and as an index (r = 0.52) in the analyses.
Perceived brand ability (H2) was mea-

Brand identification was measured as an

open-ended question, where respondents typed in the brand name they believed was featured in the advertisement. Key
message identification was measured by

asking respondents to tick the correct message out of four alternatives (the alternatives were the same across all cells and were designed to be plausible for all four brands). Furthermore, we measured difficulty of comprehension (1 = very easy to

sured with three items (1 = do not agree/ 7 = agree completely): "(Brand) is smart," "(Brand) is likely to develop valuable products in the future," and "(Brand) is good at solving consumers' problems." We included the items both separately and as an index (Cronbach's alpha = 0.83) in the analyses.
Perceived brand quality (H3) was as-

comprehend/7 = very difficult to comprehend), advertising attitude ("What is your opinion about the advertisement you just saw?"), and brand attitude ["What is your opinion of (brand)?," both on a scale from 1 (very bad) to 7 (very good)]. We also measured brand familiarity and price estimates to rule out confounding effects of consumer knowledge or competing signals (cf. Kirmani and Rao, 2000). Similar to Till and Baack (2005) familiarity with the brand was measured before exposure (1 = never heard of it/7 = know it very well). Price estimates were measured after exposure with an open-ended question where respondents were asked to type in how much they estimated that the advertised product cost (employing familiar brands and products in the study, we expected no differences between conditions). We calculated differences in price estimates within the advertising pairs and compared them by product category. The following measures were used for the hypothesis tests:
Perceived marketing effort (HI) was mea-

sessed by asking: "What is the general quality level of the brand?" with answers given on a scale from 1 (very low quality) to 7 (very high quality). Brand interest (H4) was measured with two items on a 7-point scale: "I find (brand) interesting," and "I want to buy the brand" (1 = do not agree/7 = agree completely). We included the variables both separately and as an index (r = 0.68) in the analyses.
Perceived advertising creativity (H5) was

We employed a procedure similar to Ambler and Hollier (2004). The participants were part of an internet panel of a professional market research firm and recruited to represent a cross section of the working population (56/44 female-male breakdown, age range 18-65 years, average 39 years). In total, 1,284 consumers participated in the study, making a cell size of approximately 80 respondents. Asked to participate in an advertising pretest, consumers were randomly exposed to one of the stimulus print advertisements online and then directly filled out a questionnaire.
Measures

measured by asking: "To what extent do you think that the advertisement you just saw is creative?" (1 - not at all creative/ 7 = very creative). The question was placed before the measures of perceived effort (HI) and brand ability (H2) in one-half of the questionnaires and after the same measures in the other half. This design enables us to test the direction of causalities between the variables (Kenny, 1975). It has been used in previous research on, for example, the causal effects between slogan evaluations and brand perceptions (Dahln and Rosengren, 2005).
RESULTS Manipulation and confound checks

A number of measures were employed to test the advertisement's functionality (which is supposed to be the same across conditions):

sured with two items on a 7-point scale.

Comparing the groups of more creative versus less creative advertisements.

3 9 6 JOBflflL OFflDUERTISlOGflESEflRCHSeptember 2 0 0 8

ADVERTISING CREATIVITY MHERS

perceived creativity rated significantly

TABLE 1

higher for the group of more creative advertisements (M = 3.94 versus M = 3.37, p < 0.01), suggesting that our manipulation of advertising creativity was successful. See Table 1. Furthermore, the analyses include testing for differences in functionality between the groups with respect to ^ 5 iF brand identification, message identification, comprehension, and advertising and brand attitudes. Only comprehension and advertising attitude differed between conditions, suggesting that the more creative advertisements were more difficult to com, , . , ,., , , , prehend and were better liked than the less creative advertisements. To rule out competing effects from these variables. they were included as covariates in the subsequent analyses, meaning that these ^ > differences were accounted for in the re-

Effects of Advertising Creativity

More Creative Less Creative Advertisements, Advertisements, Planned M {SD) M (SD) Comparisons ,. . , . r, ^ Perceived creativity 3,94 (1.51) 3.37 (1.64) p < 0.01
Manipulation check

^^'^^ ^ advertising functionality ....^rapd identification 0.99(0.26) iVIessage identification 0.99(0.18) Comprehension 4.96 (1.71) Advertising attitude .....^.'[^f?..^.^^.'!^.'^.^.? Confounding variables Brand familiarity ^ ^. ^ . . ,. Estimated pnce, difference ,. ^ by product category 4.08(1.47) f^.:^l.'h^^). 4-,58 (2,23) ^ +0.04

0,98(0.28) 0,99(0,11) 4.64 (1.79)

n.s. n,s, p < 0.01

3.81(1.28) p < 0.01 ^.^^..{hf!'^). ".:!; 4.44 (2.23) n.s. , . .^. Not significantly ,. , different from zero, p < 0.01 p < 0.01 p < 0.01 p < 0.01 P..<.0;10 p < 0.01 p < 0,01 p < 0.01 p < 0.01 p < 0.05 p < 0,01

suits. Brand familiarity and estimated prices did not differ between the two groups, suggesting that they should not ....l^'P^y^.?^* intervene in the effects on the dependent Time variables. Expense H2 Hypotiiesis tests _. ^ A^Axir^wA / u- . Perceived abiiity First, we ran a MANOVA (multivariate analysis of variance) on all dependent vari....Smart ables to test the hypotheses simulta.Develop valuable products neously. Comprehension and advertising . ., . ' ^ & QQQ(J problem solver attitude were included as covariates and had significant effects on the dependent variables. Even when accounting for com...^'^^^y^.^ViuM)! peting effects from these covariates, ad- H4 vertising creativity had significant effects Brand interest on all dependent variables (F(ll, 1,084)= 14.24, p < 0.01, WUkes'lambda, 0.94). Next, , , , . we employed planned comparisons to test each hypothesis individually (Table 1), Although the absolute differences are not that large (which is likely due to the modest differences in our manipulated creativity), they are all significant, suggesting that the effects are systematic. Hypothesis HI states that advertising creativity increases perceived marketing interesting Purchase intention

3:28.(1:45) 3.14 (1.54) 3,41 (1,75) 3.67(1,71) 3.22 (;i.26) 4.25 (1.19) ^ . . ,^ ,-^^ 3.44 (1.51) 4.89 (1.20) 3.86 (1.35) 3.68(1.49) 4.00 (1.72)

2.96 (1.58) 2.78 (1,50) 3.16 (1.71) 3,42(1.40) 3.-.04.(1.37) 4.00 (1,70) ^ ^ , r-^ 3.12 (1,50) 4.64 (1.21) 3.56 (1.37) 3.44(1,52) 3.73 (1.69)

Noie: f fl2, l,08i) = 24.24, p < 0.02, W7te' lambda, 0.94; n.s. = not significant.

effort. In support of the hypothesis, a comparison between the two groups reveals that the more creative advertisements rated significantly higher on perceived effort than the less creative. As Table 1

shows, both perceived expense and perceived time in design of the advertisements follow similar patterns. Hypothesis H2 states that advertising creativity increases perceived brand ability.

September 2 0 0 8 JDUIinflL OF RDUERTISIOG RESEHRCH 3 9 7

ADVERTISING CREATIVITY MATTERS

A comparison hetween the two groups sup-

TABLE 2

ports H2 (refer to Table 1). Consumers exposed to the more creative advertisements rated the brand's ability significantly higher than those exposed to the less creative advertisements (Mo,e creative = 3.67 versus Miesscreative = 3.42, p < 0.01). The brand's perceived smartness (marginally significant at p < 0.10), ability to develop valuable products, and ability as a problem solver are all rated higher in response to the more creative advertisements. Testing H3, comparisons were made between the more and the less creative advertisements on rated brand quality. The mean perceived brand quality is M = 4.89 for the more creative advertisements and M = 4.64 for the less creative advertisements ( < 0.01), supporting H3. ^^ " rr 6 Brand interest was significantly higher
^ .>' &

Regression Coefficients, Test of Mediation by Perceived Effort

a n d B r a n d Ability Standardized variables dependent variable ....P^^^i^^.^f^^ Jr'^'y Independent variables Advertising creativity Advertising creativity (after inclusion of perceived marketing effort) Perceived marketing effort Advertising creativity (after inclusion of ?.^'^^^}^^^..^.^^!}^..^^'!]]} Perceived brand ability _ ^ * K, Dependent variable ...
Brand interest

Beta Coefficient

t-Statistic

p<

0.21 0.15

2.12 1.46

0.01 n.s.

0.16 0.11

4.32 1.27

0.01 n.s.

0.61

18.92

0.01

among consumers exposed to the more creative advertisements than those who saw the less creative advertisements (Amore creative = 3.86 versus Miesscreative = 3.56, p < 0.01), which supports H4. A breakdown of the two components reveals a more significant effect on purchase mtention ( < 0.01) than on the brand s mterestmgness (p < 0.05). The development of H3 and H4 was based on the reasoning that perceived marketing effort (HI) and perceived brand ability (H2) should work as signals of quality and interestingness. To put this reasoning to a direct test, we performed tests of mediation following Baron and Kermy's (1986) frequently used procedure (see Table 2). If advertising creativity enhances perceived brand quality and brand interest through signals of marketing effort and brand ability, then (1) advertising creativity should have direct effects on brand quality and brand interest as the single independent variable in regressions, (2) perceived marketing effort and brand ability should have direct effects on brand quality and brand interest when

'^^^P^ndent variables ....^^^'^''^oreatmy, Advertising Creativity (after inclusion of perceived marketing effort) Perceived marketing effort Advertising creativity (after inclusion of perceived brand ability) ....^.^'^^^j^^^^^.^^'}!^..^^'!}]^)'.. Note: n.s. = not significant.

0,17 0.14 0.15 0.10

2.15 1.75 1.87 1.31

0.01 0.10 0.10 n.s.

?.-.49

18.47

0.01

added as independent variables in the same regressions, and (3) the effect of advertising creativity as independent variable on the dependents should decrease significantly as a result of this. As Table 2 shows, all three conditions hold. Advertising creativity is a significant single independent variable in both regressions, but when perceived marketing effort and brand ability are added in the regressions, the effects of advertising creativity decrease substantially, so that it has no significant influence on either perceived

brand quality or brand interest. A quick glance at the beta coefficients in Table 2 also reveals that perceived brand ability seems to have a greater effect than perceived marketing effort on the dependent variables. Hypothesis H5 states that the effects in H1-H4 are mediated by consumerperceived advertising creativity. To get an overview of the effects of perceived advertising creativity on all the dependent variables, we ran a MANOVA comparing the lower and upper thirds of perceived

3 9 8 JOUBnilL DFflDUEBTISinORESEflRCH September 2 0 0 8

ADVERTISING CREATIVITY MATTERS

creativity (below 3 versus above 4) as the factor (and including the same covariates as in the previous analysis). It had significant effects on all the dependents (F(4,729) = 80.40, p < 0.01, Wilkes' lambda, 0.53). Planned comparisons are listed in Table 3. As the table reveals, the effects of perceived advertising creativity are substantial and seemingly greater that those of manipulated ("hidden") advertising creativity. To test whether consumer-perceived advertising creativity mediated the effects of advertising creativity, we used Baron and Kenny's (1986) procedure once again (see Table 4). The previous mediation test reveals that perceived marketing effort and brand ability did indeed

work as signals and mediated the effects of advertising creativity. To see whether these signals are contingent upon consumer perceptions of the advertisement's creativity, we tested whether (1) manipulated advertising creativity had direct effects on perceived marketing effort and brand ability as the single independent variable in regressions, (2) consumerperceived advertising creativity has direct effects on perceived marketing effort and brand ability in the same regressions, and (3) the effect of advertising creativity as independent variable on the dependents decreases significantly as a result of this. As Table 4 shows, all three conditions hold. The results thus support H5.

Consumer-perceived advertising creativity is a rarely used measure. Some authors suggest that consumers may not be able and suited as judges of creativity (e.g.. Till and Baack, 2005). In light of this, one could question our tests of H5. Could the relationships between consumerperceived advertising creativity and the marketing signals actually be a halo effeet; that is, could consumer ratings of advertising creativity be a result of their perceptions of the advertiser's effort and ability? To discern the direction of causality and ascertain that consumer-perceived creativity precedes and causes the signals, we designed the study according to Kenny's (1975) test of causal direction. As described in the Method section, we measured consumer-perceived creativity before the other measures in one-half of the

TADI C O

questionnaires, and after the other measures in the second half. Table 5 lists the

Effects of Perceived Advertising Creativity

... ^ High . ^ Perceived ^ . . Creativity, M (SD) ^ ....P^.'P^.'y^.l^^O':* Time Expense
H2

correlations between consumer-perceived

advertising creativity and the two market^ ing signal variables for both conditions. Planned Comparisons P,<,0.01 p < 0.01 p < 0.01 As seen in Table 5, the correlation coefficients are directionally greater for the ^ ^ measures of perceived creativity taken prior to the other measures. Fischer's r-to-z test (Cohen and Cohen, 1983) reveals that the coefficients differed significantly be*^^^" conditions. The analysis shows that (1) significant correlations occur between consumer-perceived creativity and the mar, .. . , j /o^ ^u i ketmg signals, and (2) the correlations are significantly greater when consumerperceived creativity precedes the other variables, implying a causal direction from the former onto the latter. DiSCUSSION Waste in advertising creativity matters. The results of the present study show that ^^^ ""^^ ^"'^^^^ ^^ * ^ ^^^^- ^^^^^' *^^" improving the functionality of the adver.. ^ j u ..u tisement and push the message into Consumers' minds, which conventional

, Low . , Perceived ^ . . Creativity, M {SD) 2.41 (1.55) 2.12 (1.57) 2.70 (1.99)

3.67 .(1.29) 3.68 (1.43) 3.67 (1.55)

Perceived abiiity ' Smart Develop valuable products Good problem solver
H3

4.41 (1.27) >. ; 4.02 (1.53) 5.02 (1.25) 4.20 (2.44) 5.48 (1.16) 4.62 (1.51) 4.50 (1.62) 4.73 (1.71) >. !

2.67 (2.50) >. ; 2.37 (1.40) 3.35 (1.55) 2.29 (1.67) 4.02 (1.50) 2.56 (1.41) 2.39 (1.43) 2.73 (1.78) .\ ;

p < 0.01 " r...7. p < 0.01 p < 0.01 p < 0.01 p < 0.01 p < 0.01 p < 0.01 p < 0.01 " r:..7.

Perceived brand quaiity H4 Brand interest Interesting Purchase intention

Note: F(4, 729) = 80.40, p < 0.01, Wilkes' lambda, 0.53.

September 2 0 0 8 JDUROHL OF RDUERTISIIIG RESEHRCH 3 9 9

ADVERTISING CREATIVITY MHERS

lished brands that consumers were familiar

Regression Coefficients, Test of Mediation by Perceived _ . . Advertismg Creativity

s Standardized gg^g Variables Dependent variable Perceived marketing effort Independent variables Advertising creativity Advertising creativity (after inclusion of perceived advertising creativity) Perceived advertising creativity Dependent variable ....^.^.'[^^}}'.^^..^.^^!^^..^'!^'!}]^y.. Independent variables Advertising creativity Advertising creativity (after inclusion of perceived advertising creativity) Perceived advertising creativity ^ Note: n.s. = noi significant. 0.29 0.16 2.56 0.99 0.01 n.s. 0.33 7.69 0.01 0.18 0.02 2.31 0.16 0.01 n.s. Coefficient t-Statistic p<

keting signals argues that they are rele-

.^,

,^

.\.

vant mamly when communicating with consumers that are unfamiliar with the brand (e.g., Kirmani and Rao, 2000), advertising creativity is a powerful signal when communicating familiar brands as ,, well. The signaling power of advertising creativity Recent research suggests that it is becom"^g increasingly harder to position and differentiate brands with advertising (e.g.. Ehrenberg, Barnard, Kennedy, and Bloom, 2002; Heath and Nairn, 2005). As markets are crowded with similar products, communicating a unique message or making advertising that sticks is virtually impos^^^^^ ^ ^^^ '^^ ^"^^ * '^"'^'^^^'^^ '^^^ " '^ """"'^ important than ever to use creativity that really pushes the message ,, . / T-, , , j , . , r,r,r,A^ through (cf. El-Murad and West, 2004). Another Conclusion would be that creativity becomes less a matter of message and content generation, and more a matter of

0.38

5.76

0.01

y/^BLE 5

form and signaling power. Crowded mar-

Correlation Coefficients, Test of Causality

Perceived Creativity perceived creativity x . . Perceived effort P^-^ived ability Perceived quality Brand interest iVIeasured First -_ 0.35 0.42 0.43 0.49 Perceived Creativity iVIeasured Last ^ , 0.24 0.32 0.34 0.40 Difference ^ p < 0.05 p < 0.01 p < 0.01 p < 0.01

^^*' ^'''^ ^^''^ ^ differentiation are the

very reasons provided for the use of marketing signals such as advertising expense (Kirmani and Rao, 2000). Focusing on the execution in itself, rather than the actual message, the advertiser could use creativity as a powerful marketing signal as well. O " ' analysis reveals that more versus less advertising creativity produces a signal of marketing effort that is similar to advertising expense. This is good news,

wisdom holds to be the major benefit of creativity, an extra degree of creativity may send signals about the advertiser that rub off on consumer perceptions of the brand. In our experiment, more versus less creative advertising signaled greater effort on the advertiser's behalf and was

taken as proof of the brand's smartness, and ability to solve problems and develop valuable products. As a result, consumers became more interested in the brand and perceived it to be of higher quality. The latter is a particularly interesting result, as the study featured estab-

as this revelation implies that the advertiser does not need to spend excessive amounts of money to signal confidence in her product. Instead of spending money on bigger advertising spaces or longer and more frequent campaigns (e.g., Kirmani, 1990, 1997), the same effects may

4 0 0 JDBnflL OF eOERTISIIlG BESEIIIICH September 2 0 0 8

ADVERTISING CREATIVITY MHERS

be attainable by increasing creativity instead. Thus, the present study provides compelling evidence that creativity could be a way to produce greater results per advertising dollar. Creativity seems to have the greater effect through signaling brand ability than through effort. One reason for this is that creativity may fit more logically with what the brand, and advertising in general, is perceived to be about: displaying great solutions in the advertised product category. While high versus low creativity also has a signaling effect through perceived effort, most consumers would probably agree that trying hard is not the true purpose of any advertising or brand. Advertising is not primarily about spending money; advertising is about cleverly presenting the brand, and a desirable goal for any brand should be to deliver a more sophisticated product than the competition (cf. Brown and Dacin, 1997). The very (creative) form of the advertising could be a powerful clue to consumers about the brand.
Creativity Is not a yes/no

Consumer perceptions of the creativity in an advertisement mediate the advertisement's effects on the brand and malee the impact of the manipulated ("hidden") creativity much greater.

can be attained at more moderate levels. Considering the high risk that is associated with high levels of creativity (e.g., El-Murad and West, 2003; West, 1999), taking baby steps is both easier and safer than quantum leapsviewing creativity as a spectrum rather than a high absolute level encourages increases in advertising creativity across all advertising campaigns.
Creativity is not a iiidden tool

The presented numbers reveal that the advertising creativity in our study was not very high (ratings were not above the midpoint of the scale for either the more or the less creative advertisements). Thus, the study does not test the effects of outstandingly creative advertisements. Neither of the advertisements in the study would likely win an award. Still, at these (relative to previous research and to awardcompeting advertisements) low levels of creativity, increases did matter. This result provides evidence that creativity is not only important at an award-winning level, it is important at any level. By focusing too much on award-winning advertising and treating creativity as a yes/no variable, one misses out on all the improvements that can be made and effects that

Given the signaling power of advertising creativity, viewing creativity as a hidden tool for advertising professionals is a mistake. Consumer perceptions of the creativity in an advertisement mediate the advertisement's effects on the brand and make the impact of the manipulated ("hidden") creativity much greater. This is a powerful case for Kover, James, and Sonner's (1997) call to bring consumers into the agencies' processes and invite them to partake in the developmentand definitionof creative advertising. Whereas copy testing is becoming more common in practice, advertising professionals still interpret the results on behalf of the consumer, deciding whether her responses indicate that the advertisement is creative or not. Not surprisingly, Koslow, Sasser, and Riordan (2006) find that formal testing had no effect on agencies' self-assessed creative output. If advertising professionals both ask the questions and interpret consumers' answers to them, what need is there to actuaUy ask consumers? If agencies had included consumer

perceptions of the advertisements' creativity in the testing, Koslow, Sasser, and Riordan's findings would probably have been different. As Kover, James, and Sonner (1997) suggest, taking a consumer perspective offers new ideas and nuances in the creative process and provides more concrete feedback on the creative level of the advertising that would facilitate benchmarking and enhancement of the creative output. In enhancing perceived brand ability, the very creative form of advertising could be a way of branding. As suggested in the corporate ability literature, ability could be a powerful positioning in itself (Biehal and Sheinin, 2007; Brown and Dacin, 1997). For brands that have no particular unique feature, becoming increasingly common with the overwhelming number of alternatives available in most markets, ability in itself could be a sustainable source of advantage leveraging consumer expectations and trust in any product the brand introduces. This view is particularly interesting considering the trend toward continuously releasing new products under the same brand (Biehal and Sheinin, 2007). The research on marketing signals focuses mainly on unfamiliar brands (Kirmani and Rao, 2000). Whereas it still needs to be tested, creativity should have important effects on unfamiliar brands as well, as they may benefit more from marketing signals in general. However, the present study shows that high versus low creativity works as a signal for familiar and

September 2 0 0 8 JDRHIIL OF BDERTISIIIG RESEflRCH 4 0 1

ADVERTISING CREATIVITY MHERS

Creative advertising does increase consumer interest in the brands, not by communicating a new message, but by

ations and Consumer Product Responses." Journal of Marketing 61, 1 (1997): 68-84.

COHEN, JACOB, and PATRICI COHEN. Applied

communicating the same message in another way.

Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hiilsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1983.

established brands. Such brands make up the bulk of advertising in major media (Kent, 2002), They need to stay interesting to consumers even when they have nothing new to say (Machleit, Allen, and Madden, 1993), Creative advertising does increase consumer interest in the brands, not by communicating a new message, but by communicating the same message in another way. The present study focuses on a small number of advertisements for consumer products. We employed only one exposure that was forced on consumers. Our experimental design was a way to test previously uncovered effects of creativity in a controlled setting. This way, we show that advertising creativity may work in different ways than in previous literature and have powerful effects. Whether these effects materialize in a real setting (with noise, less motivated consumers), and for different kinds of products, must be subject to further research,
MICAEL DAHLN is a professor of marketing at the Stockholm School of Economics, His research focuses on innovative advertising and brand strategies, with the ambition to join creativity, business, and consumer value. Having been published in, for example, the Journal of Advertising Research, the Journal of Advertising, Psychology & Marketing, the Journal of Brand Management, he has taken the first baby steps toward realizing that ambition.

within advertising, PR, and brand communications have been published in, for example, the Journal of Advertising Research, the Journal of Advertising, the Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, and the Journal of Brand Management.

DAHLN, MICAEL, and SARA ROSENGREN, "Brands

Affect Slogans Affect Brands? Brand Equity, Competitive Interference, and the Brand-Slogan Link." Journal of Brand Management 12,3 (2005): 151-64,

EHRENBERG, ANDREW S. C , N E I L BARNARD, FREDRIK TORN is a Ph.D. candidate at the Stockholm School of Economics, focusing on incongruent brand communications. His studies have been published in, for example, the Journal of Advertising, the Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, and the Journal of Consumer Behavior. EL-MURAD, JAAEAR, and DOUGLAS C . WEST, RACHEL KENNEDY, and HELEN BLOOM, "Brand

Advertising as Creative Publicity." Journal of Advertising Research 42, 4 (2002): 7-18.

"Risk and Creativity in Advertising," Journal of Marketing Management 19, 4 (2003): 657-73, REFERENCES

and

"The Definition and Mea-

surement of Creativity: What Do We Know?"

AMBLER, TIM, and E. A N N HOLLIER "The Waste

Journal of Advertising 188-201.

Research 44, 2 (2004):

in Advertising Is the Part That Works." Journal of Advertising Research 44, 4 (2004): 375-89,

GROSS, IRWIN, "The Creative Aspects of AdverANG, SWEE HOON, and SHARON Y. M , LOW.

tising." Sloan Management Review, 14, 1 (1972): 83-109.

"Exploring the Dimensions of Ad Creativity," Psychology & Marketing 17, 10 (2000): 835-54,

BARON, REUBEN M , , and DAVID A. KENNY, "The

HABERLAND, GABRIELE S., and PETER A, D A -

Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51, 6 (1986): 1173-82.

GIN. "The Development of a Measure to Assess Viewers' Judgments of the Creativity of an Advertisement: A Preliminary Study," Advances in Consumer Research 19 (1992): 817-25,

HALL, BRUCE F . "A New Model for Measuring BiEHAL, GABRIEL J., and DANIEL A, SHEININ,

Advertising Effectiveness," Journal of Advertising Research 42, 2 (2002): 23-31.

"The Influence of Corporate Messages on the Product Portfolio." Journal of Marketing 71, 2

SARA ROSENGREN is a Ph.D. candidate at the Stockholm School of Economics, presenting her thesis on marketing communications in cluttered environments in the fall of 2008, Her experiments on competition

(2007): 12-25.

HEATH, ROBERT, and AGNES NAIRN. "Measur-

ing Affective Advertising: Implications of Low

BROWN, TOM J., and PETER A, DACIN, "The

Attention Processing on Recall," Journal of Advertising Research 45, 2 (2005): 269-81,

Company and the Product: Corporate Associ-

4 0 2 JOBfiL OF BDEBTISinG RESERRCH September 2 0 0 8

ADVERTISING CREATIVITY MATTERS

HELGESEN, THOROLF. "Advertising Awards and

cies." Journal of Advertising Research 43,1 (2003): 96-110.

STONE, GERALD, DONNA BESSER, and LORAN E.

Advertising Agency Performance Criteria." Journal of Advertising Research 34, 4 (1994): 43-53.

LEWIS. "Recall, Liking and Creativity in TV Commercials: A New Approach." Journal of Adand "Do Marketers Get vertising Research 40, 3 (2000): 7-18.

KENNY, DWAYNE A. "Cross-Lagged Panel Cor-

the Advertising They Need or the Advertising They Deserve? Agency Views of How Clients
TILL, BRIAN D . , and DANIEL W . BAAGK. "Recall

relation: A Test for Spuriousness." Psychological Bulletin 82, 6 (1975): 887-903.

Influence Creativity." Journal of Advertising 35, 3 (2006): 81-101.

and Persuasion. Does Creativity Matter?" Journal of Advertising 34, 3 (2005): 47-57.

KENT, ROBERT J. "The Effects of Media-Source

Cues in Ad Recall Tests." Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising 24, 1 (2002): 1-9.

KOVER, ARTHUR J., STEPHEN M . GOLDBERG, and

WILLIAM M . JAMES. "Creativity vs. Effective-

TOM, GAIL, and ANMARIE EVES. "The Use of

ness? An Integrating Classification for Advertising." Journal of Advertising Research 35,6 (1995):

Rhetorical Devices in Advertising." Journal of Advertising Research 39, 4 (1999): 39-43.

KIRMANI, AMNA. "The Effect of Perceived Ad-

29-40.
ToNGAR, MARK E , and JAMES MUNGH. "Con, WILLIAM L. JAMES, and BRENDA S. SON-

vertising Costs on Brand Perceptions." Journal of Consumer Research 17, 2 (1990): 160-71. NER. "To Whom Do Advertising Cratives Write? An Inferential Answer." Journal of Advertising . "Advertising Repetition as a Signal of Quality: If It's Advertised So Much, Something Must Be Wrong." Journal of Advertising 26, 3 (1997): 77-86.
Luo, XuEMiNG, and C. B. BHATTAGHARYA. "Cor-

sumer Responses to Tropes in Print Advertising." Journal of Advertising 30, 1 (2001): 55-65.

Research 37, 1 (1997): 41-53. , and . "The Influence of Simple and Complex Tropes on Believability, Importance and Memory." Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice 11, 4 (2003): 39-53.

porate Social Responsibility, Customer Satisfaction, and Market Value." Journal of Marketing

, and AKSHAY R. RAO. " N O Pain, No Gain: A Critical Review of the Literature on Signal-

70, 4 (2006): 1-18.

WEILBAGHER, WILLIAM M . " H O W Advertising

ing Unobservable Product Quality." Journal of Marketing 64, 2 (2000): 66-79.

MAGHLEIT, KAREN A., CHRIS T. ALLEN, and

Affects Consumers." Journal of Advertising Research 43, 2 (2003): 230-34.

THOMAS J. MADDEN. "The Mature Brand and

Brand Interest: An Alternative Consequence of

, and PETER WRIGHT. "Money Talks: Per-

Ad-Evoked Affect." Journal of Marketing 57, 4 (1993): 72-82. WEST, DOUGLAS C . "360 of Creative Risk." Journal of Advertising Research 29,1 (1999): 39-50.
REID, LEONARD N . , KAREN WHITEHILL KING,

ceived Advertising Expense and Expected Product Quality." Journal of Consumer Research 16, 3 (1989): 344-53.

and DENISE E . DELORME. "Top-Level Agency

KOSLOW, SCOTT, SHEILA L . SASSER, and E D -

WHITE, ALISA, and BRUGE L . SMITH. "Assess-

Cratives Look at Advertising Creativity Then and Now." Journal of Advertising 27, 2 (1998): 1-16.

ing Advertising Creativity Using the Creative Product Semantic Scale." Journal of Advertising Research 41, 6 (2001): 27-34.

WARD A. RIORDAN. "What is Creative to Whom and Why? Perceptions on Advertising Agen-

September 2 0 0 8 JDURDHL OF HDUEIITISIOG RESEflRCH 4 0 3