I put together the summaries of the creativity articles I looked at. I also have some citations I still want
to look at – I wanted to see if either of you had any of these articles. If not, I will order them.
Do You Have These Articles?
Klebba, Joanne M. and Pamela Tierney (1995), "Advertising Creativity: A Review and Empirical
Investigation of External Evaluation, Cognitive Style, and Self-Perceptions of Creativity," Journal of
Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 17 (Fall), 33-51.
Kover, A.J., S.M. Goldberg and W.L. James (1995), “Creativity vs. Effectiveness? An Integrating
Classification for Advertising,” Journal of Advertising Research, 35(6), 29-40.
Koslow, S., S.L. Sasser, and E.E. Riordan (2003), “What is Creative to Whom and Why?” Journal of
Advertising Research, 43(1), 96-110.
Moriarty, Sandra E. (1996), “Effectiveness, Objectives, and the Effie Awards,” Journal of Advertising
Research, 36 (July/August) 54-63.
Morrison, Bruce J., Marvin J. Dainoff. (1972), “Advertisement Complexity and Looking Time,” Journal
of Marketing Research, 9(November) 396-400.
Summary of Potential Creativity Scale Items
Altesch (1995) - different, unusual, original, unique, rare, innovative, unexpected, imaginative, ordinary,
typical, common, predictable, novel, and nonconformist, inappropriate, irrelevant, inadequate, fitting,
and confusing.
White & Smith (1991) - overused–fresh, predictable–novel, usual–unusual, unique–ordinary, original–
conventional, illogical–logical, makes sense–senseless, irrelevant–relevant, appropriate–inappropriate,
adequate–inadequate, skillful–bungling, well-made–botched, crude-well–crafted, meticulous–sloppy,
careless–careful
Smith & Yang (2004) – not scale items, but divergent ideas, with divergence and relevance being put
forward as the two determinants of ad creativity: fluency (spark other uses/ideas), flexibility (outside
logical and expected), originality (rare, surprising, move away from commonplace), elaboration
(unexpected details, extends basic ideas to make more sophisticated), resistance to premature closure
(resist obvious solutions; leave open), unusual perspective (unusual context or outlook), synthesis
(combine, connect, blend unrelated objects or ideas), humor, richness and colorfulness of imagery
(produce artistic impressions), fantasy (non-real idea creation), expression of emotion (convey ideas
through feelings), empathetic perspective (use viewpoint that understands others), provocative
questions (incite, arouse, elicit interesting response), future orientation (prospect/envision future
possibilities).
Haberland and Dacin (1992): Scale items: This ad does tell you why you should buy the product, This
ad is very similar to other ads for this type of product, This ad does not change your view about the
product, You hardly know what is advertised, This advertisement makes you think how the product may
be useful for you, The ad message is not easy to remember, The ad is unique, I never thought about the
product in the way the ad presents it, You get a good idea of what the product is like, There is so much
in this ad that you want to see it again, I don‟t see the point of this advertisement, The ad uses a simple
but powerful way to get the message across, This ad stands out, This ad was meaningful for me, This ad
shows me the product has certain advantages I did not know before, This ad is really out of the ordinary,
This ad makes you see the product in a new light, This ad brings a lot of thoughts to my mind, The
information given is difficult to summarize, The ad is not at all imaginative, I never thought of this
aspect of the brand before, I was astonished when I first saw this advertisement, This advertisement is
intriguing, This advertisement does not have anything to do with me or my needs, This advertisement
knocks your socks off, Interesting/uninteresting, Commonplace/surprising, Personal/impersonal,
Boring/stimulating, Succinct/diffuse, Haphazard/thoughtful, Novel/conventional,
Satisfying/unsatisfying, Involving/uninvolving, Shallow/profound, Unfamiliar/familiar, Useful/useless,
Changes your view/does not change your view, Expected/unexpected, Good/bad, Routine/imaginative
Pieters, Warlop Wedel (2002) Originality scale: Ad originality assessed by two independent judges on 4
seven point items: not original – original; Looks like other ads – does not look like other ads; Not
surprising – surprising; Not unique – unique
Johar, Holbrook and Stern (2001): ad creativity measured by experts using seven point items for
"originality," "meeting strategic objectives," "achieving the desired tone," and "satisfying the makers of
Icy Soda"
Recall
Stewart & Koslow (1989) - 72 hour related recall, 72 hour measure of message comprehension,
Pieters, Warlop, Wedel (2002) - Brand memory task – pixilation. 178 ads, including 58 from the test,
were shown on the screen. Image was pixilated to visually degrade it. Fine print and details blurred –
main forms and pictures remain. Image with four brand names in the product category, one of which is
correct. Used in Krishnan and Chakravarty (1999) and Wedel and Pieters (2000).
Wu and Newell (2003) - Brand recall was measured by counting the number of respondent's unaided
accurate descriptions of brands. Ad (message) recall was measured by counting the number of
respondent's unaided correct descriptions of ad messages.
Sengupta and Gorn (2002) - After a cover sheet, product category recall by asking participants to list all
the product categories for which they had been shown advertisements a few minutes earlier. On the next
page of the questionnaire, participants listed all the brands they remembered from the advertisements
shown earlier. Follow-up study: delayed recall. The main study was run with a five-minute delay
between exposure and recall measurement. However, advertisers are typically interested in long-term
effects of their advertisements. Accordingly, a follow-up experiment with a two-day delay was also
conducted. recall measures were taken two days after ad exposure.
Literature regarding Creativity and Recall Measures, Concepts
Creativity
White, Alisa and Bruce L. Smith (2001), “Assessing Advertising Creativity Using
the Creative Product Semantic Scale,” Journal of Advertising Research, November/December, 27-
34.
Bell (1992) describes advertising creativity as a “kind” of creativity different from the “concept” of
creativity. He said the creativity needed in advertising is problem-solving creativity, constrained by
marketing objectives, competition, and the organizational approval hierarchy, among other things
Altsech‟s factor analysis of the 65 items identified 14 terms related to originality and 5 related to
appropriateness. The following terms are related to originality: different, unusual, original, unique,
rare, innovative, unexpected, imaginative, ordinary, typical, common, predictable, novel, and
nonconformist; the following terms are related to appropriateness: inappropriate, irrelevant,
inadequate, fitting, and confusing. According to Altsech, originality in advertising can be defined as
“novelty, unusualness and unexpectedness; the same terms applicable to creative products in general.”
Early studies suggest creativity to be a function of originality and appropriateness. MacKinnon (1970)
said appropriateness “must serve to solve a problem, fit the needs of a given situation; accomplish some
recognizable goal.” Altsech concluded from his study that creativity and originality are synonymous, but
that appropriateness is a “qualifier” for creativity. That is, assessment of originality and creativity may
be discounted if an advertisement does not fit the product or audience.
The following is a list of the dimensions, subscales, and individual items from the revised CPSS
(O‟Quin and Besemer, 1989) used in this study:
Novelty Dimension
Original Subscale
• overused–fresh
• predictable–novel
• usual–unusual
• unique–ordinary
• original–conventional
Resolution Dimension
Logical Subscale
• illogical–logical
• makes sense–senseless
• irrelevant–relevant
• appropriate–inappropriate
• adequate–inadequate
Elaboration and Synthesis Dimension
Well-Crafted Subscale
• skillful–bungling
• well-made–botched
• crude-well–crafted
• meticulous–sloppy
• careless–careful
Something to address: students gave different creativity ratings than professionals or general public.
El-Murad, Jaafar and Douglas C. West (2004), “The Definition and Measurement of Creativity:
What Do We Know?” Journal of Advertising Research, June, 188-201.
Creativity in ads different from creativity in the arts because of its purpose – to achieve objectives. Not
sufficient in advertising to please. Creativity thought to need to be useful to be effective. Also thought
to be an associative process. Different types of creativity: responsive, expected, contributory, proactive.
Leo Burnett defined ad creativity as “the art of establishing new and meaningful relationships between
previously unrelated things in a manner that is relevant, believable, and in good taste, but which
somehow presents the product in a fresh new light.” Advertising creativity is also defined as “original
and imaginative thought designed to produce goal-directed and problem-solving advertisements and
commercials.” Four key elements: originality, imagination, goal-direction, and problem solving. It
seems like a lot of definitions of ad creativity cross over what it means to create an effective ad using
creativity and what it is to be a creative ad. I am not convinced that it is appropriate to mix these two
things and still call it creativity and not “effective advertising creativity.”
Measurement - Psychometric tests: tests of divergent thinking, attitude and interest inventories,
personality inventories, biographical inventories; Expert Opinion: teacher nominations, peer
nominations, supervisor ratings, judgments of products, eminence, and self-reported creative activities
and achievements.
White, Alisa, Fuyuan Shen and Bruce L. Smith (2002), “Judging Advertising Creativity Using the
Creative Product Semantic Scale,” Journal of Creative Behavior, 36(4), 241-253.
Scale same as 2001 JAR article
Smith, Robert E. and Xiaojing Yang (2004), “Toward a General Theory of Creativity in
Advertising: Examining the Role of Divergence,” Marketing Theory, 4(1-2), 31-58.
Abstract. Despite the widespread recognition of the importance of creativity in advertising by
practitioners and scholars, no systematic research has been conducted to define ad creativity or
examine how it relates to ad effectiveness. The present research attempts to fill this gap by reviewing
past literature in psychology, marketing and advertising. From this base, a model is developed which
defines a creative ad as both divergent (i.e. novel or unusual) and relevant. The effects of divergence
and (toa lesser extent) relevance on consumer processing and response are examined and a series of
theoretical propositions are developed. Next, a general theory of creativity in advertising is developed
that calls for research in five primary areas: advertising as a communication process, management
process, societal process, group process, and personal process. Finally, contributions to advertising
theory and implications for future research are discussed, along with commentary from a prominent
advertising executive.
Similar to definitions in psychology, creativity in marketing is usually defined as having two
characteristics: divergence and relevance (sometimes called effectiveness). For example, Amabile
suggests that a „product or response will be judged creative to the extent that it is a novel and
appropriate, useful, correct, or valuable response to the task at hand . . .‟ (1996: 5, emphasis added).
Similarly, Tellis defines creativity as „productive divergence‟ (1998). Thus, because an ad has a specific
goal, the level of creativity is to some extent based on its ability to achieve that goal (Duke and
Sutherland, 2001; Finke, 1995; Kover, 1995; Kover et al., 1995; Reid et al., 1998; Tellis, 1998; Wells et
al., 1995). This line of reasoning leads to the conclusion that creative ads are those that are perceived to
be divergent and relevant.
Article develops propositions based on theories of ad processing.
Determinants of divergence with examples
Factor Definition Advertising example
Fluency: The ability to generate a large number of Absolute Vodka campaign,
®
ideas – more than expected. „Got Milk‟ campaign
Flexibility: The ability to generate different ideas. Arm & Hammer baking
®
The ability to shift from one type of soda and Bounce ®
subject matter to another. Ideas that fall „multiple use‟ campaigns
outside the logical or expected.
Originality: Ideas that are rare, surprising, or move Apple computer‟s „1984‟
®
away from the obvious and commonplace. Super Bowl ad, „Joe‟ Isuzu ®
The ability to break away from habit-bound „liar‟ campaign
and stereotypical thinking.
Elaboration: Thinking of unexpected details. The ability „Scratch and Sniff‟ ads,
to finish, extend, and detail basic ideas so interactive ads
they become more intricate, complicated
or sophisticated.
Resistance to The ability to keep ideas open and resist Energizer Bunny „keeps on
®
premature quick, easy or obvious solutions. The going‟ campaign,
closure: ability to keep working is essential for the Folger‟s „soap opera‟
®
incubation processes to function. (installment) campaign.
Unusual Seeing things from a different or unusual Lamisil ads using cartoon
®
perspective: outlook. Ability to produce internal „fungus creature‟, Bac‟n Bits ®
visualizations (see beneath the surface), ads showing a cartoon dog‟s
rich imagery, break or extend normal perspective
boundaries, and provide unusual contexts.
Synthesis: The ability to bring together items by Budweiser „Frog‟ ®
combining, connecting, or blending campaign, Current GE ®
normally unrelated objects or ideas. „imagination at work‟
Includes bold mental leaps and merging print campaign
ideas freely without self-imposed restrictions.
Humor: The ability to be expressive in a comical Early Miller Lite campaign, ®
way, to amuse people and make them laugh. recent ESPN campaign ®
Richness and The ability to arrange shapes and colors in Early Infiniti ads ®
colorfulness of an attractive way. The ability to produce (forest scenes and classical
imagery: artistic impressions or art of any kind. music), Michael Jackson
High production value. Pepsi ads
®
Fantasy: The ability to generate non-real ideas, On-star „Batman‟ ads,
®
worlds, or creations, often marked by Capital One „What‟s in
highly fanciful or supernatural elements. your wallet‟
Expression of The ability to convey an idea through the Hallmark Card ads, ®
emotion: feeling and use of emotional, poignant, Zoloft campaign
®
and/or sensitive material.
Empathic The ability to use an attitude or viewpoint Child abuse prevention ads,
perspective: that understands the thoughts and feelings Many medical product ads
of others.
Provocative The ability to use analysis and queries that Bennington campaign, ®
questions: are intended to incite, arouse, or elicit an „Teaser‟ ads
interesting response.
Future The ability to prospect or envision Galyan‟s campaign „What‟s
orientation: future possibilities; to see and express Next,‟ Sharper Image ads
®
future events.
Haberland, Gabriele S. and Peter A. Dacin (1992), “The Development of a Measure to Assess
Viewers’ Judgments of the Creativity of an Advertisement: A Preliminary Study,” Advances in
Consumer Research, Volume 19, 817-825.
Three approaches to understanding creativity in the literature: identifying traits of creative people,
identifying processes necessary to bring about creativity, identifying characteristics of creative
outcomes. Traits based on differences between people – originality = uncommonness; adaptiveness to
reality – objectively correct solution/correct based on consensus of experts; creative output developed,
not one time insight. Act that produces effective surprise. Unexpectedness, in contrast to novelty and
originality, is dependent on the situation and does not have to be rare, infrequent, or bizarre. Quality of
obviousness – shock of recognition, following which there is no longer astonishment. Unexpected has
to matter to be meaningful. Unusualness – novelty/infrequency against norm; evokes surprise.
Appropriateness external or internal – degree of fit with situation or output consistency with parts; leads
to satisfaction. Transformation – view reality in a new way; leads to alternation of conventional way of
perceiving the world. Judged relative to the strength and nature of constraints. Condensation – degree
to which product achieves simplicity and summarizes essence of situation – richness of interpretation;
leads to deliberate, careful examination of the output. Thus, they feel advertising is creative when it is
(1) original and unexpected; (2) appropriate and meaningful in an advertising context; (3) requires the
viewer/listener to reformulate or modify their attitude toward the product; (4) is condensed/simple and
conveys a lot of meaning/richness of interpretation. They call for cognitive evaluations of creativity and
affective reactions.
Original items
This ad does tell you why you should buy the product (Meaningfulness = M)
This ad is very similar to other ads for this type of product (Originality = O)
This ad does not change your view about the product (Reformulation = R)
You hardly know what is advertised (M)
This advertisement makes you think how the product may be useful for you (Condensation = C)
The ad message is not easy to remember (C)
The ad is unique (O)
I never thought about the product in the way the ad presents it (R)
You get a good idea of what the product is like (M)
There is so much in this ad that you want to see it again (C)
I don‟t see the point of this advertisement (M)
The ad uses a simple but powerful way to get the message across (M)
This ad stands out (O)
This ad was meaningful for me (M)
This ad shows me the product has certain advantages I did not know before (R)
This ad is really out of the ordinary (O)
This ad makes you see the product in a new light (R)
This ad brings a lot of thoughts to my mind (C)
The information given is difficult to summarize (C)
The ad is not at all imaginative (O)
I never thought of this aspect of the brand before (R)
I was astonished when I first saw this advertisement (O)
This advertisement is intriguing (O)
This advertisement does not have anything to do with me or my needs (M)
This advertisement knocks your socks off (O)
Interesting/uninteresting (C)
Commonplace/surprising (O)
Personal/impersonal (M)
Boring/stimulating (R)
Succinct/diffuse (C)
Haphazard/thoughtful (C)
Novel/conventional (O)
Satisfying/unsatisfying (M)
Involving/uninvolving (R)
Shallow/profound (C)
Unfamiliar/familiar (O)
Useful/useless (M)
Changes your view/does not change your view (R)
Expected/unexpected (R)
Good/bad (M)
Routine/imaginative (O)
Caruana, Albert and Joseph Vella (2004), “The Relationship Between Adult Playfulness and
Viewers’ Response to Advert Execution: An Initial Exploration,” Management Research News,
27(3), 61-77.
Two items:
Creative/Uncreative
Imaginative/Unimaginative
Hoon, Swee and Sharon Y M Low (2000), “Exploring the Dimensions of Ad Creativity,” 17(10),
835-845.
Abstract (Document Summary)
A study explored the influence of dimensions of creativity - novelty (expectancy), meaningfulness (relevancy), and
emotion (valence of feelings) - on attitude toward the ad, attitude toward the brand, and purchase intention. The results
indicate that unexpectedness enhanced ad effectiveness over expectedness when the ad has positive feelings. When
the ad contains negative feelings, attitude toward the ad was diluted with unexpectedness vs. expectedness. Relevance
was not critical in encouraging favorable responses when the ad is unexpected. With an unexpected-relevant-positive-
feeling ad used as the baseline, a creative ad generated more favorable attitude toward the ad than other ad conditions.
However, ad creativity resulted in more favorable brand attitude and purchase intention only against selected ad
conditions.
what is creativity? It has been variously referred to as something novel, divergent from the norm, unique, original,
meaningful, value added, and acceptable. three dimensions of creativity are identified: novelty, meaningfulness, and
emotional content. Novelty refers to the degree to which an ad is unexpected and deviates from the norm.
Meaningfulness concerns whether the elements in an ad are relevant to the message conveyed. Finally, emotional
content concerns the feelings generated by an ad. A creative ad is one that is novel, has meaning, and generates
positive feelings.
Novelty - disequilibrium-deviation or contrariness; incongruent, irregular, having a carthartic originality; outcome of
imaginative thinking that requires a conceptual formation of objects that do not exist. Some researchers - novelty
should be the first criterion considered when deciding whether a product is creative. In advertising, a creative ad is one
that involves newness, risk, divergent thinking, and a sense of humor (Jewler & Drewniany, 1998; Marra, 1990). a
divergence from the norm-and a sense of uniqueness or originality. not expected from previous information (Haberland
& Dacin, 1992; Jackson & Messick, 1967). Similar to expectancy - how well information conforms to a predetermined
structure evoked by the ad theme. inconsistent with other ads of the same product category or schema. In this study,
unexpectedness used to operationalize the novelty dimension of creativity.
Meaningfulness - unless the creative element conveys some meaning about the advertised product, unexpectedness
does not necessarily mean creativity. novelty alone is insufficient in defining creativity - the novel element must also be
meaningful. creativity must provide value added - in advertising can be in the form of meaningfulness. Relevance.
Useful. Real.
Emotional Content - novelty carries emotional consequences. People react emotionally to an unexpected stimulus and
these emotional experiences color evaluations of novelty, suggesting that the emotional responses elicited play an
important role in determining whether or not the ad will be accepted or resisted by consumers.
I do not agree completely with this conceptualization. I think something can be unexpected or
incongruent without being creative. I guess that‟s why they have the other dimensions, but I think they
would have been better off if they didn‟t operationalize this dimension as expectancy.
Also, the reasoning used for including meaningfulness in all of these conceptualizations is weak, in my
opinion. The way they describe meaningfulness has more to do with message interpretation, an outcome
of the ad, than if the ad itself will be viewed as creative. They adopt this construct from the literature
about creative problem solving and product development, in which case creativity should only be
rewarded if it is productive. In other words, they seem to be going beyond whether the ad is creative
(original, imaginative, expressive – the dictionary.com definition) to whether the ad‟s creativity is
effective, and I don‟t think they make a strong argument that it‟s the same thing. The reason I think
about them as separate is it is also important for ads that are not creative to be meaningful if they are
going to be effective. In other words, I do not think that is a dimension that is unique to creative ads.
As far as the emotional content goes, they are describing it as an outcome of creativity, which suggests it
is something separate from creativity.
Upon exposure, the dimensions of creativity in an ad interact to influence attitudes and purchase intention.
Expectancy-Valence of Feelings Interaction
There are several consequences when unexpectedness is encountered. an unexpected stimulus creates an "arousal
jag." This arousal initially causes tension, which motivates individuals to resolve the unexpectedness by engaging in
greater cognitive elaboration. Such elaboration consists of increased processing effort to encode the unexpected
information. Therefore, in ads with unexpected information, consumers engage in greater cognitive elaboration
compared to ads with expected information.
That unexpectedness causes arousal and more elaborate processing is supported by categorization theory. Borrowing
from the schema theory of Fiske and Taylor (1991), Goodstein (1993) suggested that the incongruity between an ad
and that expected of ads from the same product category motivates consumers to process the ad in greater detail. More
importantly, such unexpectedness has been found to result in more favorable evaluations (Mandler, 1982; Meyers-Levy
& Tybout, 1989; Taylor, Wilson, & Miracle, 1994). Taylor et al. (1994) found that when ads contained a message
different from that expected, there were more favorable attitudes toward the ad and the brand and higher purchase
intention compared to ads with nondifferentiating messages. Similarly, Meyers-Levy and Sternthal (1992) observed that
when there is little overlap between two stimuli (i.e., unexpected), more favorable evaluations were obtained among
consumers who engaged in elaborate processing.
Besides expectancy, the effect of cognitive elaboration is also affected by the emotional content of the unexpected
information (indicated by block lines in [1] of Figure 1). Research shows that positive moods result in more favorable
evaluations of unexpected stimuli whereas negative moods result in less favorable evaluations (Isen & Shalker, 1982;
Laird, 1974; Veitch & Griffitt, 1976). Thus, the emotional content from an ad generates an affective response that
impacts attitudinal responses and determines ad effectiveness.
Further, according to Gardner (1987), an unexpected stimulus activates associations in the memory network that can be
positive or negative, consistent with Mandler's (1995) proposition that affective responses occur when an unexpected
stimulus is encountered. However, such emotional experience accompanying an unexpected stimulus is likely to be
more intense given that more cognitive elaboration is engaged to resolve the unexpectedness. Therefore, positive
feelings associated with an unexpected stimulus are likely to have a greater positive impact on evaluations compared to
an expected stimulus generating feelings in the same direction. Similarly, negative feelings associated with an
unexpected stimulus is likely to be more intense and have a greater negative impact on evaluations than those
generated by an expected stimulus. Therefore, although positive-feeling ads will generate more favorable responses
than negative-feeling ads, the superiority of positive-feeling ads will be accentuated when the ads are unexpected than
expected. Formally, H1 states the following.
H1(a): When an ad has a positive feeling, unexpectedness will result in more favorable attitudes and higher purchase
intention than expectedness.
H1(b): When an ad has a negative feeling, unexpectedness will result in less favorable attitudes and higher purchase
intention than expectedness.
Relevancy-Valence of Feelings Interaction When Unexpected
This interaction pertains to the dotted lines denoted by [2] in Figure 1 when there is unexpectedness. As mentioned
earlier, the feelings generated from an unexpected stimulus influence evaluations. However, emotions to an unexpected
stimulus occur against the backdrop of the existing cognitive schema. The ability to draw linkages (i.e., whether the
unexpected stimulus is relevant to the primary message) will aid assimilation, which in turn will reduce negative
emotional reactions. A positive emotional state is generated when the unexpected stimulus is smoothly assimilated into
existing schematic structures. However, the ability to draw linkages is lessened when irrelevant information is
encountered (Heckler & Childers, 1992).
The literature suggests that the unexpected-relevant quality of creative ads is important in enhancing attitude. According
to Lee and Mason (1998), the evaluative advantage of unexpected information over expected information is dependent
on the relevant nature of the information. In order for unexpected information to generate favorable evaluative
responses, consumers must be able to make sense of the ad information. An unexpected-irrelevant ad makes it difficult
for consumers to resolve the contradictory information. Such futile elaboration generates frustration, unfavorable
thoughts, and, hence, unfavorable evaluative responses. This proposition is consistent with Mandler's (1982) argument
that when consumers cannot resolve extreme incongruity (i.e., irrelevant-unexpected), effortful but fruitless elaboration
is made, eliciting negative evaluations. Thus, when the message is relevant, easier processing allows for positive
(negative)-feeling ads to generate favorable (unfavorable) evaluations. However, when the message is irrelevant, the
inability to resolve the discrepancy satisfactorily results in less favorable evaluations even when the ad has positive
feelings.
If the message is relevant and, hence, aids information processing, but the ad elicits negative feelings, unfavorable
evaluations are obtained. If the negative-feeling ads are coupled with an irrelevant message, similar unfavorable
evaluations are also generated because of the negative feelings as well as the frustration from the futile elaboration of
irrelevant information. Therefore, no difference in evaluation between relevant and irrelevant ads is expected when the
ads elicit negative feelings. Thus, H2(a) and H2(b) for positive- and negative-feeling ads state the following.
H2(a): When there is unexpectedness, a relevant-positive-feeling ad will result in more favorable attitudes and higher
purchase intention than an irrelevant-positive feeling ad.
H2(b): When there is unexpectedness, a relevant-negative feeling ad will result in similar attitudes and purchase
intention as an irrelevant-negative feeling ad.
Contribution of Creative Ads
As a test of the contributions of creative ads, H3 predicts that a creative ad-one that is unexpected and relevant and has
positive feelings, will result in more favorable evaluations than ads with other combinations of expectancy, relevancy,
and feelings. Thus, H3 states the following.
H3: A creative ad (one that is unexpected and relevant and has positive feelings) compared to a less creative ad will
generate more favorable attitudes and higher purchase intention.
METHOD
Design and Subjects
A2-2-2 (expected vs. unexpected information, relevant vs. irrelevant information, and positive vs. negative feelings)
between-subjects design was conducted. Subjects were 160 business undergraduates, randomly and equally assigned
to each treatment. Some 30% were males.
Stimulus Development and Manipulation
Eight colored print ads were developed. The product advertised was a sun-block lotion called Sunbloc. Each ad varied
in terms of information expectancy, information relevancy, and valence of feelings elicited. Expectancy and valence of
feelings were manipulated through the pictorial element in the ad while relevancy was manipulated through the ad copy.
The top one-third of each ad contained the manipulated pictorial element, the middle one-third the manipulated copy
element, and the bottom one-third contained a picture of the advertised product.
Information Expectancy. Expectancy was manipulated by way of how typical the pictorial element is to ads about sun-
block lotion. Expected ads showed pictures of a woman sunbathing, typical of ads from this product category.
Unexpected ads showed atypical pictures of sun-block lotion ads-toast becoming tanner.
Expectancy was measured using four 7-point Likert-type items, adapted from Andrews and Smith (1996). These were
predictable/novel, ordinary/unique, expected/unexpected, and routine/fresh. Reliability test showed a Cronbach
alpha of 0.92, permitting that an average score be used as a measure of expectancy. The higher the score, the more
unexpected was the ad.
Information Relevancy. All the pictorial elements used showed the object with varied intensity of color. For instance, in
the pictures of a woman, she had increasing tan from light to dark. Similarly, the pictures of bread showed these
different shades. These varied shades were intended to convey the different levels of tanning available. In the relevant
condition, the message was "Sunbloc lets you choose your tan" because the picture meaningfully conveys this
message. In the irrelevant condition, the message was "Sunbloc is fragrance free" because the meaning of the copy
was not reflected in the picture. The degree of tanning and fragrance-free were chosen as the benefits conveyed in the
messages because both claims are commonly seen in suntan ads. Hence, they are not unexpected claims.
Relevancy was measured with the use of two 7-point items. Subjects were asked how relevant was the copy to the
pictures and how well they were able to draw a relationship between the pictures and the copy. Pearson
correlation was high at 0.86. Thus, an average score was used to compute relevancy. The higher the score, the more
relevant was the ad.
Valence of Feelings. In the expected ads, the woman used in the positive feelings condition was slim and attractive, and
the model in the negative-feelings condition was not as slim and less attractive. In the unexpected ads, bread with
varying degrees of toast were used to convey positive feelings, and bread with varying degrees of moldiness were used
to suggest negativity.
A 5-point scale adaptation of the feelings index of Edell and Burke (1987) was used. The items were disgusted,
offended, confident, and skeptical. After scale reversals for the negative-feelings items, the Cronbach alpha was
0.77. Thus, the overall mean for the four items was used to determine the effectiveness of the feeling manipulation.
Dependent Variables
Attitude toward the Ad (Aad). Four 7-point items adapted from Holbrook and Batra (1987) was used to measure Aad.
Subjects indicated how much they reacted favorably/unfavorably and positively/negatively to the ad, how much they
liked/disliked it, and how good/bad the ad was. Two items were reverse scored. After the appropriate scale reversals,
reliability checks showed a high Cronbach alpha of 0.95, permitting that Aad be computed as the average of these
items.
Attitude toward the Brand (AB). Similarly, the above four 7-point items were used but for the brand. Cronbach alpha was
0.92, and, thus, the items were averaged to obtain an index for AB.
Purchase Intention (PI). Two 7-point items measured PI. Subjects were asked how likely they were to buy Sunbloc
and how likely they were to recommend it to a friend interested in buying a sunscreen lotion. Past research has used
these two items jointly to measure behavioral intention (e.g., Boulding, Kalra, Staelin, & Zeithaml, 1993). The correlation
was 0.69 and therefore, an average score was used where the higher the score, the more favorable was PI.
Experimental Procedure
Subjects were informed that they were taking part in a study to assist in the evaluation of a print ad. They were also told
that the ad is in its design stage and not in its final, publishable form. Subjects were then shown a print ad. This was
followed by questions measuring the dependent variables. Subjects' creativity index was measured, followed by the
manipulations checks measuring the valence of feelings generated from the ad, information expectancy, and
information relevancy.
RESULTS
Manipulation Checks
A MANOVA test was first conducted. The results showed significant main effects of expectancy, relevancy, and valence
of feelings (Hotelling F's - 46.44, 173.68, and 41.84, respectively; p's - .01). Separate ANOVAs were then conducted
and reported below.
Information Expectancy. The ANOVA test conducted showed higher unexpectancy scores for unexpected compared to
expected ads (x - 4.02 vs. 6.67; F - 103.93, p -.01). There were no significant differences in expectancy scores arising
from the manipulations of information relevancy and valence of feelings (F's - 0.62). There were also no significant
interaction effects (F's - 2.33). Therefore, the benefit claims of tanning choice and fragrance-free used to manipulate
relevancy were not viewed to be of different degrees of novelty or unexpectedness. Together, the results suggest that
the manipulation of expectancy was equally effective across all conditions.
Information Relevancy. Ads with relevant copy were rated significantly more relevant than those with irrelevant copy (x -
5.36 vs. 1.57; F - 501.87, p -.01). The influence of ad information expectancy and valence of feelings were not
significant (F's - 3.01). There were also no significant interaction effects (F's - 0.17). Thus, the manipulation was
successful.
Valence of Feelings. Positive-feelings ads were rated more favorably at 3.66 compared to 2.42 for negative-feelings ads
(F - 131.03, p -.01). Moreover, there were no significant main or interaction effects arising from expectancy and
relevancy (F's - 3.43), thus indicating that the manipulation of feelings was equally effective.
Hypotheses Testing
The MANOVA test showed a main effect arising from valence of feelings (Hotelling F - 52.15) but not expectancy or
relevancy (Hotelling F's - 1.61). Significant interactions were observed for expectancy-feelings (Hotelling F - 6.19) and
expectancy-relevancy (Hotelling F - 2.36). No significant three-way interaction was found (Hotelling F - 0.15). Given that
the appropriate two-way interactions were observed, univariate ANOVAs were then conducted to test the hypotheses.
As a summary of the separate ANOVAs conducted, positive-compared to negative-feeling ads resulted in more
favorable Aad, AB, and PI (F's - 56.68, p's - .01). No main effect for information relevancy was observed. Information
expectancy had a significant main effect on PI (F - 4.86, p -.05), but not Aad or AB (F's-2.32, p's-.10). Significant
interaction effects were observed for valence of feelings by expectancy (F's - 4.28, p's - .05).
H1. H1(a) hypothesized that when an ad generates positive feelings, ad effectiveness will be greater when the ad is
unexpected than when it is expected. In contrast, when an ad generates negative feelings, H1(b) predicted that ad
effectiveness will deteriorate when the ad is unexpected compared to when it is expected. Hence, the superior effects of
positive feelings over negative feelings elicited in an ad will be more pronounced when the ad is unexpected than when
it is expected.
Significant interaction effects on Aad, AB, and PI were observed (F's - 17.77, 4.29, and 6.45, p's - .05). Simple main
effects tests indicated that when the ad showed positive feelings, an unexpected ad was more effective than an
expected ad. Specifically, compared to an expected ad, an unexpected ad with positive feelings resulted in more
favorable Aad (x - 5.31 vs. 4.32; t - 3.72, p - .01; see Figure 2), more favorable AB (x - 5.03 vs. 4.41; t - 2.90, p - .01;
see Figure 3), and higher PI (x - 4.84 vs. 3.78; t - 3.35, p - .01; see Figure 4). Hence, H1(a) was supported.
Consistent with the hypothesis, when the ad showed negative feelings, an unexpected ad resulted in less favorable Aad
compared to an expected ad (x - 2.24 vs. 2.79; t - 2.17, p - .05). However, unexpectedness did not result in significantly
less favorable AB or lower PI as predicted (AB - 3.39 vs. 3.48 for unexpected and expected conditions, respectively; PI -
2.88 vs. 2.95 for unexpected and expected conditions respectively; t's - 0.37, p's - .10). Hence, H1(b) was partially
supported.
H2. H2(a) predicted that when an ad is unexpected and positive, those accompanied by a relevant message will be
more effective than those with an irrelevant message. Therefore, Aad, AB, and PI are hypothesized to be more
favorable for the unexpected-positive-relevant condition compared to the unexpected-positive-irrelevant condition. In
contrast, H2(b) suggested that there will be no difference if the ad elicited negative feelings.
The MANOVA test for interaction between relevancy and feelings was insignificant when the ad was unexpected
(Hotelling F - 0.46, p - .10). Subsequent ANOVA tests also yielded insignificant interaction effects on Aad, AB, and PI
(F's - 0.53, p's - .10). Specifically, when an unexpected-positive ad was encountered, a relevant version was similar to
an irrelevant version in Aad (x - 5.70 vs. 4.91; F - 0.52, p -.10), AB (x - 4.95 vs. 5.10; F - 0.08, p -.10), and PI (x - 4.83
vs. 4.85; F - 0.09, p -.10). Therefore, H2 was not supported.
H3. H3 stated that the creative ad condition of unexpectedness, relevance, and positive feelings will result in more
favorable Aad, AB, and PI compared to other ads. Planned contrasts using Tukey-B were conducted to determine
significant mean differences between the ad in the unexpected-relevant-positive-feeling treatment and those in the other
treatments. For H3 to hold, the means in the unexpected-relevantpositive-feeling condition have to be significantly
higher than the means in the other conditions. As shown in Table 1, this was satisfied for Aad. The unexpected-
relevant-positive-feeling ad resulted in the most fa vorable Aad at 5.70, whereas the unexpected-irrelevant-negative-
feeling ad had the least favorable Aad at 2.04. For AB and PI, partial support for H3 was found as the unexpected-
relevant-positive-feeling ad resulted in significantly more favorable evaluations compared to four of the seven other
conditions.
DISCUSSION
Based on the literature, this study synthesized previous research from various disciplines on what constitutes creativity.
In doing so, it identified three dimensions of creativity: novelty or unexpectedness, meaningfulness or relevance, and
emotional content or valence of feelings generated. A creative ad is one that is unexpected, carries a relevant message,
and generates positive feelings. The virtues of such ads have been documented largely in cognitive advantages
attributed to expectancy and relevancy. The present research extends by exploring the affective and behavioral benefits
of such dimensions of creative ads to attitudes toward the ad and the brand, and purchase intention. It also explored the
influence of the third variable, emotional content, on these variables.
The current research demonstrates the contingent effectiveness of these dimensions of creativity in advertising.
Specifically, ads were found to be effective contingent on unexpectedness and the feelings elicited. The results of H1
showed that unexpectedness in an ad accentuated the effects of positive feelings compared to an expected ad. That
this finding was observed for Aad, AB, and PI allows one to feel confident about the generality and robustness of the
beneficial effects of unexpectedness when the ad generates positive feelings. However, unexpectedness appears to
have characteristics of a double-edged sword. When the ad generates negative feelings, unexpectedness rendered the
ad less effective. However, such a disadvantage was limited to Aad; it did not hold for AB or PI.
Theoretically, this finding suggests that the superiority of unexpectedness over expectedness is limited to ads with
positive feelings. Previous research on expectancy and relevancy used stimuli that were favorable, if not neutral, and,
hence, the favorable results concerning unexpected over expected ads are consistent with the present findings.
However, the current findings identified that such superiority is limited to positive-feeling ads only. Further, the dilution of
Aad in the unexpected negative vs. expected-negative conditions suggests that unexpectedness may even have a
detrimental effect, although this was not generalizable to other responses. Future research may investigate the
circumstances, besides negative emotional content, under which unexpectedness is detrimental.
The findings also offer a bridge for the contradictory findings observed by researchers on expectancy. On the one hand,
some have found unexpectedness to result in improved ad effectiveness (e.g., Meyers-Levy & Sternthal, 1992; Taylor,
Wilson, & Miracle, 1994); while others have found unexpected or atypical ads to generate less favorable attitudes (e.g.,
Goodstein, 1993). This study demonstrated that it depends on the emotional content of the ad. Unexpectedness in ads
with positive feelings enhances such evaluations, whereas unexpectedness in ads with negative feelings dilutes such
evaluations.
Managerially, the findings indicate that there are certain conditions under which a creative ad becomes effective. It pays
for ad agencies to consider unexpectedness in an ad, but only when it is accompanied by positive feelings. Often, in
attempts to be different and outstanding from the clutter of ads, ad agencies let wanton creativity get the better of them
by engaging in bizarre executions that may be distasteful to the audience. Though such bizarre executions may be
perceived to be creative by creative directors, they should bear the audience in mind. By and large, audiences prefer
positive-over negative-feeling ads. Therefore, such positive feelings should not be sacrificed in the name of creativity.
Positive feelings emitted should be the cornerstone in ads to ensure that negative responses are minimized. Though
this maxim seems obvious, anecdotal evidence of ads that are considered distasteful by audiences exists. Ad agencies
should therefore pretest the ads before a campaign is launched to ensure that a majority of the target audience
perceives the ads as eliciting positive yet unexpected feelings.
The finding that unexpectedness dilutes Aad when the ad has negative feelings suggests that ads with equivocal
feelings are better off portraying expectedness than unexpectedness. However, several ad campaigns use unexpected
and negative-feeling appeal. These tend to be of the shock-cum-fear appeal genre. Examples include campaigns on
smoking, AIDS, and drunk driving. These ads are unexpected (shock) and carry negative feelings (fear). An
antismoking ad may graphically show the harmful effects of smoking on one's lungs. Although such ads stand out from
competitive clutter because of the shock appeal, attitudes toward such ads may be negative, as suggested by the
results observed here. Moreover, defense mechanisms may occur that cause consumers to avoid paying attention to
such ads. This finding is consistent with the research on the appropriate intensity of fear appeal (Ray & Wilkie, 1970)
which found that high-fear appeal led consumers to avoid or ignore the ad message.
Managerially, the unexpected-negative feeling results suggest that for campaigns using fear appeal, unexpected
versions should be avoided, as they dilute Aad. A fear appeal may be strong but should not be accompanied by
unexpectedness, as this will shock consumers and result in attitude dilution and avoidance. Hence, in antismoking ads,
graphic and gory details that shock are not recommended. Instead, information that draws on fear but not shock is ideal.
This, however, requires a delicate balance as what is fearful is sometimes also shocking.
The findings to H2 did not find relevancy to influence attitudes and purchase intention when unexpected ads were
encountered. Managerially, this suggests that for the creativity team, coming out with a concept that is novel is more
important than a concept that is meaningful to that product category or brand. Such novel concepts can thus be drawn
from various areas. An advertising man can borrow ideas from architecture, from nature, from science fiction, and
others and present them as novel ideas for that advertised brand. The idea need not necessarily be related to the
product category. Therefore, this will see more cross-fertilization of ideas from various fields.
A possible explanation why relevance was not a significant factor is the ease with which irrelevance can be resolved in
the present study. The ads used contained one line of copy (i.e., a headline) to operationalize relevance between the
copy and the picture. Such simplicity may not have resulted in excessive "futile" elaboration to elicit unfavorable
attitudes, suggesting that more elaborate copy (headline and body copy) can be used in future research to enhance the
need for cognitive elaboration. Cognitive thoughts can also be measured to gauge the extent of elaboration and account
for the lack of significance.
The contributions of ad creativity appear to be more evident in Aad and less so in AB and PI. The results to H3 showed
that an unexpectedrelevant-positive-feeling ad resulted in significantly more favorableAad compared to the other types
of ads. However, in terms of AB and PI, positive-feeling ads without unexpectedness or relevance elicited similar levels
of evaluations compared to unexpected-relevant-positivefeeling ads. Thus, it appears that to some extent,
unexpectedness and relevance can be sacrificed for positive feelings but not the converse. This finding therefore adds
further support to the above recommendation that positive feelings should be the cornerstone when creating ads.
Additionally, the results suggest that Aad is more easily influenced than AB and PI by creative elements. Managerially,
this implies that ad creativity may be more effective for low-involving than high-involving products. The peripheral route
to persuasion via Aad can influence evaluation and purchase of low-involving products. Therefore, ad creativity can be
capitalized to enhance AB and PI for low-involving products by inducing more favorable Aad. In contrast, ad creativity
may not be as effective for highly involving products. Purchase decisions for such products are based more on product
benefits and claims rather than by ad characteristics.
The present research used a single ad in each condition. Future research may use multiple ads representative of a
cross-section of products and services for each condition. This will provide generalizability to the findings obtained.
Additionally, the ads used may be existing ones that have won creative awards and yet satisfy the manipulation criteria.
This will provide both mundane and experimental realism to the research. Finally, the present research operationalized
the unexpectedness by using different central stimuli (women for expected and toast/ bones for unexpected). Future
research may seek to find ways to operationalize expectancy with the use of the same central stimulus.
Breaking through the clutter: Benefits of advertisement originality and familiarity for brand attention and memory
Rik Pieters, Luk Warlop, Michel Wedel. Management Science. Linthicum: Jun 2002.Vol.48, Iss. 6; pg. 765, 17 pgs
A common communication strategy to break through this competitive clutter is to increase ad originality. However, ad
originality may have detrimental effects when consumers pay more attention to the ad at the expense of the advertised
brand. Moreover, the positive effects of originality may quickly wane when the ad becomes familiar.
Surprisingly, no research to date has examined such brand attention and memory effects of ad originality and familiarity.
The current study aims to fill this void. We use a stochastic model of the influence that ad originality and familiarity have
on consumers' eye fixations to the key elements of advertisements - brand, text, and pictorial - and how the information
extracted during eye fixations promotes memory for the advertised brand. The model explicitly accounts for
heterogeneity due to consumers and advertisements. Infrared eye tracking was applied to collect eye fixation data from
119 consumers who paged through two general-audience magazines containing 58 full-page advertisements. Memory
for the advertised brands was assessed with an indirect memory task. The model was estimated using Markov Chain
Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods.
Copywriters and art directors consider original advertising to be the key to break through the competitive clutter. They
believe that originality of ads is at the heart of advertising effectiveness because it captures consumers' attention and
makes ads more memorable (Caples 1997, Kover 1995, Moriarty 1986, Reid et al. 1998). Not remarkably, in view of his
vested interest, prize-winning creative director John Bartle is confident that "creativity is what makes ads effective"
(http://www.fm.co.za), and that therefore the focus in advertising should be on originality. Yet a focus on ad originality in
advertising strategy presents dangers as well. It is argued that original ads may attract attention to the pictorial and copy
elements but distract attention away from the advertised brand, which would reduce subsequent brand memory. Then,
originality would be counterproductive and lower ad effectiveness. Moreover, attention to original ads may dissipate
quickly once they become familiar and the novelty wears off. In that case, original ads hold a double danger. They may
distract attention from the brand when unfamiliar, and may attract lower overall levels of attention when familiar; both of
which would reduce memory for the advertised brand (for discussions see, e.g., Haberland and Dacin 1992, Shimp
1997).
Originality in advertising involves, as Zinkhan (1993, p. 1) formulated, "thinking up (dreaming up) new ways to present
selling propositions." Advertisers apply various techniques of "defamiliarization" to stimulate the audience to think
"about a familiar issue from an unexpected perspective" (Scott 1994, p. 254), such as metaphors, wordplay, or humor.
These techniques use the perceptual features of advertisements like the number, size, colors, positions, and types of
words and pictorials (Gorn et al. 1997, Moriarty 1986).
Some researchers have tried to explain the experience of originality from the cognitive appraisal of incongruities
between the target advertisement and consumers' mental representations of typical advertising executions
(Heckler and Childers 1992). Others have focused more broadly on "collative properties" which should promote the
experience of originality, such as ambiguities in the meanings communicated by a stimulus (Berlyne 1971, 1974),
or on novelty (Ang and Low 2000). These conceptualizations are not very satisfying, because they are neither unique
nor sufficient for the experience of originality. Humor, for example, is also defined in terms of incongruity, and not
all incongruities are considered original (Blasko and Mokwa 1986, Godkewitsch 1974).
Following Amabile's (1983) consensual definition of creative products such as advertising, we argue that the
experience of originality is shared, graded, and irreducible to a specific aspect of advertisements. That is,
consumers know advertising originality when they see it and tend to agree on this (Plucker and Renzulli 1999).
Original ads deviate in some way from the norm for the product, brand, medium, or advertising at large, and are
experienced to be unique, different from other ads, and original, which stimulates surprise. Instead of being an
all-or-nothing phenomenon, advertisements vary in the degree to which they are original. Finally, no specific creative
technique or perceptual feature can be uniquely associated with advertising originality.
The fact that the experience of originality is generally shared within cultures (Albert and Runco 1990) allows advertisers
to create original ads that are experienced as such by a mass audience. It has led to measurement techniques that are
based on consensus between raters (Amabile 1983, Haberland and Dacin 1992). This study will use the shared
consumer experience of ad originality as a starting point, and examines its effects on attention and memory.
2.1. Ad Originality Effects on Attention and Memory
Print advertisements typically contain three main elements-the brand, text, and pictorial. The brand element in
advertisements relates to all pictorial and textual references to the brand, including the name, logo, symbols, and
packshot. The pictorial element includes all illustrations, graphics, and pictures in the ad, but excludes brand symbols.
The textual element includes all text in the advertisement, such as headlines, sublines, body text, and payoff, excluding
the brand name. We examine each of the three ad elements, but single out the brand as the source and object of
advertising (Keller 1998).
Original ads present the brand with text and pictorials that have a low prior probability of co-occurrence with the
advertised product (Lee and Mason 1999). They avoid obvious associations and stimulate new ones. Frequently, they
combine familiar elements in an unfamiliar, unexpected way. One of the informants in a qualitative ad study voiced this
about an original advertisement (McQuarrie and Mick 1999, p. 44): "eye catching ... kind of creative because it is
something that is familiar and relates to the product and kind of combines them both at the same time." Original
stimuli such as ads have the tendency to pop out and attract attention (Johnston et al. 1990). They deviate from most
other advertisements and challenge the consumer to understand what the ad is about and demand sustained focal
attention to the advertised brand and the message contained in the ad (Morrisson and Dainoff 1972). The brand in
advertising is most informative to consumers, receiving most attention per unit surface size (Wedel and Pieters 2000).
Advertising originality promotes further exploration of the advertisement, and of the source and object of it. Therefore
we propose:
HYPOTHESIS 1. Ad originality promotes attention to the advertised brand.
Attention to the advertisement allows for more elaboration and strengthening of existing brand associations in memory.
Therefore, if Hypothesis 1 is supported, ad originality should promote brand memory indirectly through increased levels
of attention. There is reason to believe that ad originality also promotes brand memory directly. For the same amount of
attention, original ads promote more new associations to the advertised brand in memory (Mandler 1979,1982).
These new associations distinguish brands in original ads from other brands in memory, and they provide multiple
retrieval cues that lower the memory threshold of these brands (Baddeley 1990, Heckler and Childers 1992). This
should increase the likelihood of retrieving the brands from memory, independent of the amount of attention devoted to
the advertisements. Therefore, we conjecture:
HYPOTHESIS 2. Ad originality promotes brand memory, independent of attention.
Ad originality assessed by two independent judges on 4 seven point items:
not original – original
Looks like other ads – does not look like other ads
Not surprising – surprising
Not unique – unique
(Amabile 1983; Cox and Cox 1988; Haberland and Dacin 1992; Plucker and Renzulli 1999)
The role of myth in creative advertising design: Theory, process and outcome
Gita Venkataramani Johar, Morris B Holbrook, Barbara B Stern. Journal of Advertising. Provo: Summer
2001.Vol.30, Iss. 2; pg. 1, 25 pgs
In this connection, one popular conceptualization classifies design activities as routine, innovative, or creative
(Rosenman and Gero 1993). In this scheme, a "creative" product is not only original, novel, interesting, and unique
(i.e., innovative), but also useful and practical (Dasgupta 1994; Finke, Ward, and Smith 1992; Weisberg 1993). In
other words, going beyond mere newness, a genuine creation also works. Anything less may be merely
miscreation. Thus, an advertisement is not considered a creative success in the real world unless it achieves a
client's communication objectives (Kover, James, and Sonner 1997). (Not considered a creative success, but
is it considered creative?)
Despite general agreement about the essentials of the creative product, there is considerable disagreement about the
distinctive nature of the creative process. Some researchers consider this process qualitatively different from "ordinary"
day-to-day thinking, involving a leap of freedom or a flash of insight that cannot be reconstructed or analyzed (Guilford
1950; Wallas 1926). The difference is attributed to the use of nonformulaic thinking in creative tasks versus ready-
made formulas in ordinary ones. In the former, many innovative ideas are generated (Campbell 1960) to extend the
space of possible solutions, to move "outside the box," or to devise an altogether new space (Rosenman and Gero
1993).
In contrast, reductionist researchers propose that the creative process involves only ordinary mental functions and is,
therefore, only quantitatively different from everyday thinking (Dasgupta 1994; Finke, Ward, and Smith 1992; Perkins
1981; Weisberg 1993), with creative thought more meticulous than ordinary thinking in "staying within the lines." Here,
innovative idea generation occurs because (rather than in spite) of the constraints imposed by preformed mental
categories. The underlying premise is that creativity works within boundaries, for only imaginative use of formulaic
elements results in an elegant outcome. To compose a sonnet, for example, a poet must adhere to its strict stylistic
rules (14 lines, metric structure, rhyme scheme, etc.).
A third perspective is integrative, as when synthesizers such as Hofstadter (1985) claim that the sine qua non of
creativity is a balance between freedom and constraints. The process becomes unbalanced if there are too many
restrictions or too much freedom (Finke, Ward, and Smith 1992). This integrative view is consistent with new product
development programs such as Tauber's heuristic ideation technique (HIT), in which a person is given a structured
framework for generating creative new product ideas and in which constrained idea generation often outperforms
freeform association (Tauber 1972; see also Goldenberg, Mazursky, and Solomon 1999a, b).
Perhaps because of disagreement about the global nature of the process, some researchers begin not with the whole,
but with the parts, aiming at identification and analysis of the key activity steps (Taylor 1959; Wallas 1926). In
advertising research, Young (1974) proposes a five-step creative sequence: "gather raw materials, organize them, drop
the entire subject (incubation), wait for the idea to appear, and adapt the idea to practical use" (Reid and Moriarty 1983,
p. 127). More recently, when Kover (1995) examined the implicit theories of communication used by copywriters in the
creation of advertising, he formulated a post-hoc developmental sequence based on the copywriter's internal dialogue
with an implied reader. However, no further research on the process of advertising creativity in a real-time, real-world
environment has appeared. Our study begins such an exploration of the advertising design process as it occurs in an
agency setting.
These judges studied the relevant materials and then evaluated the creativity of each ad using seven-point ratings of
"originality," "meeting strategic objectives," "achieving the desired tone," and "satisfying the makers of Icy
Soda" (Boden 1991; Finke, Ward, and Smith 1992; Gero and Maher 1993; McLaughlin 1993). Clearly, these expert
evaluations provided only a small sample of opinion, intended as an informal yardstick as is consistent with the
exploratory nature of the study. In this regard, "creativity is a subjective judgment made by members of the field
about the novelty and value of a product; it is not an inherent quality that can be measured independent of
social-construction processes within a field" (Ford 1996, p. 1115). It still seems to me that they are
measuring outcomes and not creativity.
Advertising agency philosphies and employee risking taking
Douglas West, John Ford. Journal of Advertising. Provo: Spring 2001.Vol.30, Iss. 1; pg. 77, 15 pgs
Interest in creativity has varied considerably over the years. In the first five years of the Journal of Advertising, just over
10% of articles focused on creativity, whereas during the next fifteen years, just over 1% (five articles) were published
on the subject (Zinkhan 1993). This lack of attention was attributed by Zinkhan (1993) to the difficulty in studying
creativity and it has been a notoriously difficult construct to define (Moriarty 1996; Polansky and Waller 1995; Reid and
Rotfeld 1976). Recent work has focused on the controversy about whether advertising creativity has floundered in
recent years compared with the overall norms in the 1960s and 1970s (Reid, King and DeLorme 1998) and perhaps in
light of new threats to traditional advertising media (Rust and Oliver 1994). Furthermore, creativity has been found to be
central to agency selection in several studies (e.g., Gagnard and Swartz 1988; Heinke 1995; Murphy and Maynard
1996). Bold and creative advertising requires that risks be taken.
The fundamental templates of quality ads
Jacob Goldenberg, David Mazursky, Sorin Solomon. Marketing Science. Linthicum: 1999.Vol.18, Iss. 3; pg. 333
The present research suggests that successful advertisements share and are characterized by such abstract patterns termed
creativity templates. The theoretical rationale for the emergence of such templates and the empirical studies that detect the
key creativity templates underlying quality ads indicate that the templates are identifiable, objectively verifiable, and
generalizable across multiple categories. Studies 1 and 2 were designed to identify and describe the templates. Six major
creativity templates were derived by inference from a sample of 200 highly evaluated print ads drawn from award-winning ad
contests such as The One Show (Study 1). Judges found that 89% of the ads could be explained by the six creativity
templates. Following a formal description of the templates and their versions, a study comparing 200 award-winning and 200
nonwinning ads (Study 2) is reported. It was found that the two groups differed systematically in the number and distribution of
creativity templates: 50% of the award-winning ads as opposed to only 2.5% of the nonwinning ads could be explained by the
templates. Further validation of the template approach was obtained by manipulating presence or absence of templates in an
experimental setting. In Study 3 groups of individuals were trained in template-based idea generation, an association
technique, or not trained at all, prior to an ad-ideation task. Another group subsequently rated the ideas. Findings indicate that
a priori knowledge of the templates was associated with the generation of higher quality ads in terms of creativity, brand
attitude judgments, and recall (Study 4), with some variation in terms of feeling responses which included humor, emotion, and
annoyance.
The first two scales assessing ad quality are frequently included as major items in advertising response scales (e.g.,
Edell and Burke 1987; Mitchell and Olson 1981): One scale reflects creativity and the other attitude toward the brand.
They were also chosen in accordance with Finke's (1990) suggestion (in creativity research) to assess ideas both by
their creativity and practical value (Note that practical value is separate from creativity). The other three
scales were extracted from previous studies focusing on ad feelings. While studies on feeling responses typically
involve relatively large inventories (e.g., Holbrook and Batra 1987, Edell and Burke 1987, Richins 1997), the current
purpose was to capture the major dimensions proposed by Edell and Burke 1987 (see also Richins 1997), namely
upbeat, warm, and negative, by key scales, given the load involved in rating 15 ideas. To this end, the list of responses
loading on the three key feeling dimensions was examined. The scales "humor", "emotional", and "annoy" were chosen
based on their loading on the three key dimensions and their classification as important in practice by a senior creative
director. Instructions followed Edell and Burke (1987). All five scales were rated on five point scales (1 representing
lowest value and 5 highest value).
Top-level agency creatives look at advertising creativity then and now
Leonard N Reid, Karen Whitehill King, Denise E DeLorme. Journal of Advertising. Provo: Summer
1998.Vol.27, Iss. 2; pg. 1, 16 pgs
Creativity, indisputably the least scientific aspect of advertising, is arguably the most important (Cummings 1984; Otnes,
Oviatt, and Treise 1995; White 1972).
The studies fit into four separate but related categories: (1) studies of creative decision processes (Courtney 1971;
Hirschman 1989; Kover 1995; Lavery 1993; Mondroski, Reid, and Russell 1983; Moriarty and Vanden Bergh 1984;
Solomon and Greenberg 1993; Taylor, Hoy, and Haley 1996; Vanden Bergh, Reid, and Schorin 1983; West 1993), (2)
studies of individual characteristics and creative problem-solving abilities (Auer 1976; Klebba and Tierney 1995;
Moriarty and Vanden Bergh 1984; Reid 1978; Reid and Rotfeld 1976; West 1993), (3) studies of organizational
influences and ad creation (Holz, Ryans, and Shanklin 1982; Tinkham, Lane, and Leung 1987; Vanden Bergh, Smith,
and Wicks 1986; and West 1993), and (4) studies of advertising education and creativity (Kendrick, Slayden, and
Broyles 1996; Otnes, Oviatt, and Treise 1995; Otnes, Spooner, and Triese 1993; Reid 1977; Robbs 1996; Vance 1982;
Vanden Bergh 1984). Our empirical inquiry fits into another category of research on advertising creativity-the monitoring
of changes and trends in industry-based perceptions of advertising creativity.
Included in the questionnaire instructions was the following definition of advertising creativity: For comparative
purposes, we define advertising creativity as original and imaginative thought designed to produce goal-directed
and problem-solving advertisements and commercials.
The definition was developed primarily from the writings of Di]lion (1975), Moriarty (1991), Politz (1975), and Reid and
Rotfeld (1976), and is consistent with Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary (1984, p. 325).
Four key elements are incorporated within the definition: originality, imagination, goal-direction, and problem-
solving. Like all forms of creativity, advertising's creative processes and products are marked by originality and
imagination, two elements that are generally associated with art, music, architecture, and such. Originality is indicated
by a novel approach that is regarded as new, improved, and highly distinctive; imagination is indicated by how
images and concepts are formed and associated. Advertising, as a special form of creativity, differs from artistic
expression and other forms of creativity-for-the-sake-of-creativity in that originality and imagination must operate
within a goal-directed and problem-solving context. In advertising, goal direction is indicated by the fact that ads are
created to accomplish specific marketing communication objectives, which are usually determined and prescribed by
marketing specialists; problem-solving is indicated by how well ad creations communicate brand-related problem
solutions to targeted consumers.
Advertising creativity is a relative state that is especially subject to the "eye-of-the-beholder" phenomenon. Ads judged
original and imaginative by the consuming public, fellow advertising creatives, or media critics may not be deemed
creative by corporate marketing managers, client advertising directors, agency account executives, or other marketing
specialists. The latter individuals are likely to believe that originality and imagination are not enough; in their view,
advertising must produce communication effects, move product, influence market share and profit, and address
consumer problems. We provided the aforementioned definition of advertising creativity to frame the construct for the
study respondents. At the very least, the definition reduces the potential for interpretation variance by establishing a
common parameter for judging advertising creativity.
Advertising Creativity Factors. The third section of the questionnaire contained 25 statements about creativity-related
factors identified by Weilbacher (1993) as related to modern advertising's creative stagnation. The respondents were
asked to indicate their level of agreement with each of the 25 statements on a 5-point scale. Specifically, the
instructions were: Following is a series of statements about how the advertising environment and the advertising
creative process may have changed since you first entered the advertising business. Using a scale where 1 equals
strongly disagree and 5 equals strongly agree, please indicate your level of agreement with each statement.
Some of the statements were worded in a manner consistent with the observations of Weilbacher (1993).
Recall Measures
Executional Factors And Advertising Effectiveness: A Replication
Stewart, David W.; Koslow, Scott
Journal of Advertising; 1989; 18, 3; pg. 21-32
Recall Measures: 72 hour related recall, 72 hour measure of message comprehension,
Breaking through the clutter: Benefits of advertisement originality and familiarity for brand attention and memory
Rik Pieters, Luk Warlop, Michel Wedel. Management Science. Linthicum: Jun 2002.Vol.48, Iss. 6; pg. 765, 17 pgs
Brand memory task – pixilation. 178 ads, including 58 from the test, were shown on the screen. Image
was pixilated to visually degrade it. Fine print and details blurred – main forms and pictures remain.
Image with four brand names in the product category, one of which is correct. Used in Krishnan and
Chakravarty (1999) and Wedel and Pieters (2000).
The impact of noise on recall of advertisements
Bob T Wu, Stephen J Newell. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice. Statesboro: Spring 2003.Vol.11, Iss. 2; pg. 56
Recall Measures
Brand recall was measured by counting the number of respondent's unaided accurate descriptions of
brands.
Ad (message) recall was measured by counting the number of respondent's unaided correct descriptions
of ad messages.
Absence makes the mind grow sharper: Effects of element omission on subsequent recall
Jaideep Sengupta, Gerald J Gorn. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research. Chicago: May
2002.Vol.39, Iss. 2; pg. 186, 16 pgs
Recall Measures
After a cover sheet, we measured product category recall by asking participants to list all the product categories for
which they had been shown advertisements a few minutes earlier. On the next page of the questionnaire, participants
listed all the brands they remembered from the advertisements shown earlier.
Follow-up study: delayed recall. The main study was run with a five-minute delay between exposure and recall
measurement. However, advertisers are typically interested in long-term effects of their advertisements. Accordingly, a
follow-up experiment with a two-day delay was also conducted. Subjects (n = 75) were exposed to either the element-
absent or the element-present advertisement. Exactly the same procedure as was used in the main experiment was
followed (only the 8-second exposure was studied); the only difference was that recall measures were taken two days
after ad exposure. Again, element omission led to a significant improvement in product category recall (element-absent
= 30.77%, element-present = 8.33%; x^sup 2^ = 5.89, p < .05), though not for brand recall (element-absent = 5.13%,
element-present = 2.78%; x^sup 2^ < 1, n.s.) or total ad recall (element-absent = 1.00, element-present = 1.08; F(1, 70)
< 1, n.s.).