. . . .. . . . . .. . .
- - - - - -
,:.. c #
i :HARD VAUGHN IS senior
~ presldf?~t and research
!.Wtor of Foote. Cone &
$ddlng In LOS Angeles prior
- mmlng FCB In 1978, he
kas w!th Ralston Purina
:~pany for 15 years in a
,, P:y of market!ng and re-
~2rCFt asswments$ ln-
.dlng research director of
. * van Camp Sea Food DI -
~wrr In San Diego. Over the
rears, he has been tnvolved
. ml! aspects of researching
--?ducts and services for the
.S marketplace, including
PIoioratlon of consumer
,@ues and behavior tn rela-
‘t,xr to the economic climate.
u, Vatighn attended
. C L A and Occidental Col-
~e majoring In Philosophy
vw Engltsh He was a
‘+?mber of the edltorlal re-
NW board of the Journa/ of
V$’ke?)ng from 1974 through
‘:’8 and IS presently on the
w.Iew board of the Journa/
4
hc/ve</s, ng Research, In
‘“W he authored an adver-
~ t ng plannlng model which
‘ M been adopted worldwlde
:! Foote, Cone & Beldtng.
w=%.
. . . . . ” . . . . - ..*J . .
HOW ADVERTISING
WORKS:
A PLANNING MODEL
REVISITED
I n response t[~ a need for stra-
tegic discipline and creati~’e
stimulation durins a ci\’er-
tising planning, Foote, Cone &
Belding explored and developed
a comprehensive communication
model (Vaughn, 1980). Building
upon traditional consumer re-
sponse theories (Kotler, 1965)
and the hierarchy-of-effects
model and its variants (Lavidge
and Steiner, 1961; Robertson,
1970), this new model combined
high-low involvement and left-
right brain specialization. The re-
sult was a visually coherent and
intriguing matrix (see Figure 1).
The advertising planning prop-
ositions inherent in the quadrant~
in Figure 1 suggested that com-
munication response would cer-
tainly be different for high versus
low involvement products/
services and those which re-
quired predominantly thinking
(left brain) or feeling (right brain)
information processing. This map
was not only intuitively ap-
pealing; it conveniently helped
place Kotler’s consumer response
theories in useful perspective
and also provided niches for sev-
eral low involvement models
(Ray, 1973; Robertson, 1976) de-
veloped to explain consumer be-
havior which did not follow the
learn-feel-do sequence of the
basic hierarchy-of-effects.
Now identified simply as the
FCB Grid (Berger, 1985), this
planning model d(’lineatcs four
primary advertising planning
st~-(~te~ics –-–’’i]lfor]l]a{ i”e,’” “af -
f~xiive,” “habitucll,” and “satis-
faction,” with tht’ir mo$t appro-
. . - . 4 - - - - - “-..... .- =.. . .
priate traditional and variant hi-
erarch y-of-effects models (see
Figure 2).
Quadrant 1. The iYZ@wzatiZw
strategy is for highly involving
products/services where thinking
and economic considerations
prevail. The classical hierarchy-
of-effects sequence—awareness
+ knowledge -+ liking + prefer-
ence -+ conviction + purchase—
abbreviated to “learn + feel +
do”—is the designated model for
such big-ticket items as cars, ap-
pliances, and insurance.
Quadrant 2. The aflective
strategy is for highly involving
and feeling purchases, those
more psychological products ful-
filling self-esteem, subconscious,
and ego-related impulses re-
quiring perhaps more emotional
communication. A variant hier-
archy putting “feel” before
“learn” and “do” is the priority
for such products as cosmetics,
jewelry, and fashion clothing.
Quadrant 3. The habitual
strategy is for those low involve-
ment and thinking products with
such routinized consumer be- ●
havior that learning occurs most
often after exploratory trial
buying. This implies a respon-
siv-e, behavioral learning-by-
doing. Although some minimal
level of awareness may precede
purchase, deeper learning is not
necessary for such commodity
decisions,as paper products,
household cleaners or gasoline.
Quadrant 4. The satisfaction
strategy is for low involvcnlent/
feeling products, items of per-
sonal taste, “life’s little
Journal of ADVERTISING RESEARCH— FEB’MAR 1986 ST
 prising]}’ well in a l’arit’t~’ of \
Figure 1 Figure 2
Tt+INK FEEL problen;-solving situati{}ns. It
s
o was even pointed out that the FCB Grid “NK , ‘L
I

HIGH
:
i
grid itself exemplified the unity i
WGH
INVOLVEMENT :
D
of left-right brain con~plemen- INVOLVEMENT lNFORM&TIVE
(Erxmomfc) ,! (p&&::&,
: tarity in being bt)th ~’erbal and
:
visual, thereb)’ ~’irtuall)’ c(lmpel-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
}-----”------””” ling a ne~v w’a~’ of appn~aching m---” - - - - - - - - - -
+
------. --=
-%

I
I str~tegic planning t(~r e~-c’n a :0
:
B long-establishcci product. HAEtlTUAL
n
: sAnsFAcTrQ
(Respcmswe) ,
LOW
:
I It was also apparent, however, LOW
involvement
(social)
INVOLVEMENT D m-Lwm-FIA ~ oo-l%l.bm
: that some preliminary implica-
t :
!
tions of the grid in several areas #.

were premature if not unrealistic.

For example, specific creative,
media, and copy-test activities naturally decay over time to 10M
pleasures” such as beer, ciga- were proposed for each strategic involvement or feel.
rettes, and candy. A social model quadrant before it was sensibly These impractical hypothese5
is useful for many of these peer- realized just how category or were abandoned during early,
oriented items, and the hierarchy brand-specific such issues were, judgmental applications of the
places “do” before “feel” and Also, think and feel were mistak- grid, but two questions did
“learn” because product experi- enly viewed as independent emerge which could not be ig-
ence is so necessary a part of the rather than complementary and nored with grid experience:
communication process. interrelated. One particularly (1) Did the grid accurately depl
Reaction to the grid was posi- flamboyant bit of generalization real consumer involvement
tive and enthusiastic. Despite, or suggested that high involvement and think-feel dimensions?
perhaps because of, its simplicity or think-oriented products would (2) Where were major product
manv advertisers accepted it as a
prac~ical, creative way around the
overutilization of the classical
learn --+ feel -+ do hierarchy Figure 3
model in all advertising strategy
planning. Even in its earliest ap- FCB U.S. Grid Study
plications, the grid: THINK
■ helped organize available re- D
.Ufe
search and management lniwamO\2
opinions about category and ~ FarnIty -r
brand placement in consumer . 35mm
carnera~
involvement and think-feel t4tQH
INVOLVEMENT 8
terms; D
8
● stimulated insightful questions : ● l%rfutna
and hypotheses about a B
: . Ccwnphbf’i
product’s advertising options ● M~CX oil : soap
in the context of the competi-
tive situation;
■ and brought previously uncon- mstlng
sidered ernot~onal, nonverbal, card
and sensory strategic possibili-
ties into legitimate contention
with rational, verbal, and se-
mantically more powerful
suggestions.
Because the grid managed to
condense almost three decades of
con>umer behavior theory into a
practical format, it worked sur-
,

58 Journal of ADVERTISING RESEARCH -- FEBIMAR 1986

 sumers across some 250 prodUq
Table 1 categories. Respondents rated *Q
FCB U.S. Grid Study—Factor Correlations cently purchased products/ ‘
Involvement Think/Feel services using the eight scales,
$ which permitted grid mapp~g
Important .96 .03
on the basis of iIWO]VeIYK?nt ~d
Lose .90 -.03 think-feel dimensionality. Ten
.97 .12
representative categories are ~.
Thought
lustrated in Figure 3.
Logical/objectwe .93 -.28 Products and services plotted
Functional facts .75 -.50 where reasonably expected; ~i
ysis of individual scale scores
Feeling .70 .66
helped profile which constru~
Personality .47 .80 had contributed most to. categon
.65
location. And, as a quahty con--
Sensory effects -.47
trol check on the test instru~eot
the scales were correlated by
categories actually located in
grid space? Figure 4 ,“ ‘P’
The value of the grid in pro- 16 %$
viding workable strategic solu- Headache Remedy—France
tions had been demonstrated in
several advertising success FEEL
THINK
stories, but FCB nevertheless un-
dertook an extensive research
and development program
(Ratchford, 1985). A considerable
effort went into operationalizing D
involvement and think-feel, and . Wganine :
eventually eight scales were HIGH
INVOLVEMENT 9
accepted: D
9
i
D
Involvement
D Very important/unimportant ● TjMnol :
decision “ Doliprane :
■ Lot/little to lose if you choose ● Efferalgan :

the wrong brand Toutes marques $F “Aspegic

m Decision requires ]ot/litt]e As@nne.* ~p’(j :
thought
“UPSA :
Think B
-... - . . . . . . . . . . . . ..-.. *...= . . . . . ---------
N Decision is/is not mairdy logical ● Catalgme
or objective D
D
s Decision is/is not based mainly D
D
on functional facts
Feel &pinne du RhMe ~
Decision is/is not based on a lot B
of feeling Q
B
Decision does/does not express D
LOW i
one’s personality INVOLVEMENT
Decision is/is not based on s
D
looks, taste, touch, smell, or #
sound (sensory effects) B
9
The primary grid validation B
t
study was conducted in the
United States among 1,800 con-
/

60 Journal of ADVERTISING RESEARCH— FEB MAR 1986

- ——.— —.- —..-’ ..=$
 .
~

{ Y
1
106*
#

as shown in Figure 4 for aspirin I

Figure 5 brands.
Headache Remedy Clusters, It was also practical and sti~u.
Dispersion lating to cluster consumers I

around a category plot. Ob-

Viousl}’ not m’eryone placed eaCl,
FACIAL TISSUE catego~ at the mean. A typical ‘
CLUSTERS, DISPERSION three-cluster so]ution produced
dispersions much like the ex-
THINK FEEL ample shown in FiSure 5. Exam.
I
I ining different invc;l~’en~ent and
I
I think/feel scores for these
I clusters, and their brand Prefer.
ences, helped isolate new” stral
tegic advertising options.
HIGH
INVOLVEMENT

. the grid managed to

, 0

condense almost three

decades of consumer behavim
11 111 111 1111111
---- ---- ---- -. theory
w into a practical
fomat . . .
3 3=333 3 3 3 3 3 3
I -
3 3 3 3 3 +3333X3333 3
And, in a follow7-up to the U.S.
[ 3 333:3 3 3 3
33 grid study, it m’as also possible tc

‘o’””’” /-%t’:z 33 2 22 22 I 2 2 2
i
plot characteristics for selected
categories. Derived from prior
research and brainstorming, cate
gory and brand attributes were
I
2 Z42p22 2
\
scaled for involvement and
think-feel. As shown in Figure&

)
2 2
22
2 2
( 2 2 2
factor (see Table 1). Some think
and feel items correlated with in-
volvement, which confirmed that
it was possible to have varying
amounts of think and feel—high
or low— depending on involve-
ment. The involvement and
think-feel factors, however,
worked very well in discrimi-
nating consumers’ product-
decision space.
To date, over 20,000 consumer
interviews have been completed
in 23 countries. Correlations of
22;2 22
2 q2
2 2 ’ m
I
22 2! 222 22 22A
common products were con~-
puted between pairs of countries
and were quite high, which told
us that consumer mental pro-
cesses were similar over the mar-
keting world despite necessary
concessions to communication
distinctions in advertising.
Previous judgmental use of the
grid had included not only cate-
gory plotting but exploratory
placement of brands as well.
Major grid studies provided large
sample sizes for brand plotting,
the wine attributes that were
most involving and feeling-ori-
ented (upper right skew) were
the most useful in differentiating
consumer brand preferences.
While brand and attribute
mapping are far from unique,
having such analysis anchored t(
a strategic planning model is e~-
tremely useful in advertising de
velopment. The linkage to con-
sumer decision processes reas-
sures that the executional option!
are being created in a relevant
context and that final advertising
is more likely to be motivating
Despite the successful applic~
tion of the grid in planning ad-
vertising, we have nonetheless
continued to speculate about thf
involvement and think-feel di-
mensions. Fortunately, many

62 Journal of ADVLR1 ISING RESEARCH— FEBIMAR 1986

Km

others are doing so as well. For
example, while the FCB grid de-
fines involvement in the context
of a consumer’s purchase deci-
sion, it is clear that it could also
be defined in the purchase situa-
tion or in product consumption
(Kassa~ian, 1981).
Since the grid is often used to
reflect on previous consumer re-
search as well as current mar-
keting judgments about a
product’s positioning and adver-
tising opportunities, it is impor-
tant to be flexible and insightful
about consumer involvement.
The real question often is not
how much involvement but what
kind and what it means. Recent
projects by Laurent and Kapferer
(1985) and Slama and Tashchian
(1985) are promising in their ex-
ploration of an array of involve-
ment elements.
The think-feel dimension is
more problematic. While split-
brain research supports special-
ized cognitive and affective
mental styles, it is also recog-
nized that the brain is actually a
unified system (Levy, 1981) that
integrates complex stimuli and
adroitly manages both informa-
tion and emotion. But most dis-
cussion of this topic in the mar-
keting literature has been meta-
phorical rather than empirical.
consumer mental
. . .
processes were similar over
the marketing world despite
necessary concessions to
communication distinctions
in advertising.
Some advertising applications
(H,msen, 1978; Appel, 1979;
Kruglnan, 1980; Weinstein, 1982)
sug~est that what we may be
contending with, in its simplest
comm u 11 i cation form, is a verbC~l/
nonverbal and semantic/sensory
64 Journal of ADVERTISING RESEARCH— FEB’MAR 1986
Figure 6
Wine for Dinner Parties-Attributes
Wine For Dinner Parties
THINK
1 2
HIQH
INVOLVEMEM
3
●
●
●
●
INVOLVEMEW
●
continuum that allows people to
integrate information and emo-
tion as necessary.
Perhaps the best that can be
said at this time is that emotion
has at least become a legitimate
topic for discussion in making ef-
fective advertisments (Zajonc,
1982; Holbrook and O’Shaugh-
nessy, 1984; Stout and Leckenby,
1984), and there is also renewed
interest in nonverbal elements in
advertising (Watson, 1979;
Childers, 1984; Haley, 1984).
While there is still much to be
learned about thinking and
feeling in advertising, the dis-
tinction made by Hollm-ook (1978)
between “logical, objectively ver-
ifiable descriptions of tangible
product features” and “emo-
tional, subjective impressions of
intangible aspects of tl~e product”
are fundamentally important for
— ——- . ..-. . .
?-’-’-”
●
●
● ●
●
~rce
text 0
tising
We
know
tising
work
anyohe confronting the uncer- well f
tainties of advertising strategy tive a
and the perplexities of creative ~rovf
executions. ~~mtil
Other work continues on the diligc
hierarchy-of-effects model }W’op
(Preston and Thorson, 1984), be
havior-oriented consumer
learning models (Nerd, 1980;
Rothschild, 1981), and attitude-
dominant (Mitchell, 1981; Shimf
1981) consumer models to furthl
our understanding of how advel
tising works. Moran (1985) has
put forth a computer microchip
analogy with various consumer
processing paths activated to-
ward purchases much the way
energy flows through a microci]
cuit, clearing gates and followin
channels set by consumer need!
and advertising resportse.
Regardless of how these fur-
ther explorations come out, thu
=$!
,Jf the FCB Grid has helped to
:ama~ through a previously rigid
~ate~c barr!er and become
~,lre expansive and creative in
..
~e~oping advertising. It has
~de strategic creative planning
~Ore relevant m terms of poten-
~[ consumer response and
~mu]ated more exciting execu-
~s. It has done so largely by
~ning Up the advertising p]an-
~rflg discussion to how adver-
~~in$ M’ork.s. Strategists have
~mlated rational versus emotional
~~pea]s, suggested involvement-
~~lsing options, and considered
~i~~’ing a brand in consumer
~rception —all within the con-
~Xt of a unified model of adver-
tising effectiveness.
if-e may not now, or ever,
~~mi’ definitively how adver-
wing works. But we do know it
wclrks in some definable ways
‘er-
%Ld enough to make more effec-
‘gy
tive ad~’ertising. The FCB grid has
tive proved useful in that effort and
~{mtinues to grow in the hands of
the
dhgent and inspired advertising
pcop]e. D
:), In
References
o;
~de- tfppel, Valentine; Sidney Wein-
him ~!~~in; and Curt Weinstein. “Brain
furtl 4cti\’ity and Recall of TV Adver-
advi lt~ing.” Journal of Advertising Re-
has <’k~rch 19, 4 (1979): 7–15.
chip
mer h>rger, David. “The FCB Grid. ”
to- li~ l%vcwdi~lgs of the Adzwhking
vay ~%warch Fou ndotion 31st Annual
swi ~~i??lleyc}l~e, March 1985.
~wil
lee d Gilders, Terry L., and Michael J.
~ !t)llstc)n. “Conditions for Pic-
fur- !llrc-Superiority Effect on Con-
tht ‘wner Memory. ” ]ournal of COrz-
su ~llm Rcsmrch 11 (September
1984): 643-653.
Haley, Russell I.; Jack Richard-
son; and Beth M. Baldwin. “The
Effects of Non-Verbal Communi-
cations in Television Adver-
tising.” Journal of Advertising Rc-
Sf?U?’Ch 24, 4 (1984): 11–18.
Hansen, Fleming. “Hemispheral
Lateralization: Implications for
Understanding Consumer 13e-
havior.” journal of CoIZsuIIIcr Re-
search 8 (June 1981): 23–36.
Holbrook, Morris, B. “Be~~ond
Attitude Structure Toward the
Informational Determinants of
Attitude.” Journal of Marketing
Research 15 (1978): 545-556.
Holbrook, Morris B., and John
O’Shaughnessy. “The Role of
Emotion in Advertising. ” Psy-
cho~qyy & Mdwting 1, 2 (Summer
1984): 45-64.
Kassarjian, H. H. “Low Involve-
ment—A Second Look. ” In Ad-
vances in Consumer Rewrch, Vol.
8, K. B. Monroe, ed. Ann Arbor,
MI: Association for Consumer
Research, 1981.
Kotler, Philip. “Behavioral
Models for Analyzing Buyers. ”
journal of Markcfing 29 (1965):
37-45.
Krugman, Herbert E. “Point of
View: Sustained Viewing of Tele-
vision. ” Jourml of Advcrtisi?zCq Re-
search 20, 3 (1980): 65–68.
Laurent, Gilles, and Jean-Noel
Kapferer. “Measuring Consumer
Involvement Profiles,” journal of
Marketing Rwcarch 22, 1 (1985):
41-53.
Lavidge, R., and G. A. Steiner.
“A Model For Predictive Mea-
surements of Advertising Effec-
tiveness. ” Journol of Marketing 25
(1961): 59-62.
Levy, Jerre. “Children Think
With Whole Brains: The Myth
and Reality of Hemisphere Dif-
ference and Inter-hemispheric In-
tegration.” Paper presented at
the conference of The National As-
smiotio]l of Secondmy School Prin-
ciples, November 1981.
Mitchell, Andrew A., and Jerry
C. Olson. “Are Product Attribute
Beliefs the Only Mediator of Ad-
vertising Effects of Brand Atti-
tude?” ]ournal of Morkctill<q Re-
search 18 (1981): 318–332.
Moran, William T. “The Circuit
of Effects in Tracking Advertising
Pro fixability.” journal of Adz.w-
tisi]~g Research 25, 1 (1985): 25-29.
Nerd, Walter R., and J. Paul
Peter. “A Behavior Modification
Perspective on Marketing. ”
journal of Markcti??g 44 (1980):
36-47.
Preston, Ivan L., and Esther
Thorson. “The Expanded Associ-
ation Model: Keeping the Hier-
I
archy Concept Alive. ” Journal of
Advertising Research 24, 1 (1984):
59-65.
Ray, Michael L. “Marketing
Communication and the Hier-
archy-of-Effects. ” S~gc A? Inual Re-
z~ipl~? of c~?~l]~lujlicatiojl Researcjl, F.
Kline, ed, 1973.
Ratchford, Brian S. “Operational-
izing Invol\’ement and Thinking/
Feeling Dimensionality in the
FCB Grid. ” Working Paper, 1985. .
Robertson, T. S. “Low Commit-
ment Consumer Behavior. ”
]ournal of Advertising Research 16,
2 (1976): 19-24.
Colzsz[?llcr Bclmuior. Scott,
Foresrnan & Co., 1970.
Rothschild, Michael L., and Wil-
liam C. Gaidis. “Behavioral