<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Journal of Advertising Research</title>
<link>http://www.jar.warc.com/</link>
<description>The Journal of Advertising Research is the R&amp;D vehicle for professionals in all areas of marketing including media, research, advertising and communications. Published for The ARF by the World Advertising Research Center.</description>
<copyright>World Advertising Research Center Ltd 2009</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 September 2007 12:50:00 GMT</lastBuildDate>
<generator>World Advertising Research Center</generator>
<editor>Editor@warc.com</editor>
<webmaster>webmaster@warc.com</webmaster>
<ttl>5</ttl>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Why Empirical Generalizations Matter]]></title>
<link>http://www.jar.warc.com/articles/TOC.asp?ArticleID=89479</link>
<author>Geoffrey Precourt</author>
<description><![CDATA[This paper is an introduction to an issue of JAR devoted to `empirical generalisations': the papers were first presented at a conference at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania in December 2008. As the advertising environment rapidly changes and becomes more complex, it becomes easier to make mistakes and the penalties for doing so rise. In this context is essential to review existing knowledge about advertising and distinguish it from myth. We know more than we tend to think: the focus is on fundamental knowledge, empirical generalizations with long &#8216;use-by' dates that hold across a wide range of known conditions. The aim is to collect a list of what is currently known with some certainty. Such knowledge is practically useful in four main ways: as a starting point for developing advertising strategy, as an initial set of tentative rules that management can follow, as benchmarks providing insight into the consequences of change, and as a guide for future research. The focus on television because most of the learning has come from there underscores the need to establish similar knowledge and benchmarks for digital and social media.]]></description>
<pubDate>1 Jun 2009</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Today's Advertising Laws: Will They Survive the Digital Revolution?]]></title>
<link>http://www.jar.warc.com/articles/TOC.asp?ArticleID=89480</link>
<author>Byron Sharp and Yoram Jerry Wind</author>
<description><![CDATA[This is an introductory paper in a special issue of the Journal of Advertising Research JAR on empirical laws, based on an invitation-only conference at held at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania in December 2008, which brought together over 100 thought leaders from industry and academia to present and discuss empirical generalizations about how advertising and media work. The conference www.futureofadvertising.wordpress.com and this special issue of JAR are studies directed by the &#8220;Future of Advertising&#8221; project of the SEI Center www.seicenter.wharton.upenn.edu at the Wharton School. The focus is on fundamental knowledge, empirical generalizations with long &#8220;use-by&#8221; dates that hold across a wide range of known conditions. The aim is to collect a list of what is currently known with some certainty. The nature of scientific laws, and how they apply to advertising, is discussed. They are established empirically, by observing patterns which keep recurring in a wide range of different conditions; theories which are not based on empirical observations are frequently found to be wrong. Scientists find most useful those generalisations which are simple and apply widely; continued observation of different conditions enables the models `laws' to be developed and refined. Market research has a poor track record here: studies tend to be stand-alone, ignoring what has been previously established, and statistics tends to seek best-fit models rather than more approximate ones that cover a wider range of conditions. It is explained what a scientific law is and is not: it must be about the real world, not a logical statement or tautology, it must have been observed a number of times, and under varied conditions. Some examples of such laws in advertising are quoted. Laws are not prescriptive: they set limits within which actions can work and help prediction of results, but cannot be beaten. The changing environment the rise of digital media etc. may change or modify some laws, although many are expected to remain robust.]]></description>
<pubDate>1 Jun 2009</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Advertising Impact Generalizations in a Marketing Mix Context]]></title>
<link>http://www.jar.warc.com/articles/TOC.asp?ArticleID=89481</link>
<author>Dominique M. Hanssens</author>
<description><![CDATA[This paper reviews and summarises a recent book issued by the Marketing Science Institute MSI: Empirical Generalizations about Marketing Impact. The book contains more than 80 empirical generalizations EGs, contributed by about 60 academics from around the world. Each EG is summarized and documented in a standard one-page format. Where possible, the EGs are quantified using a response metric that allows comparisons across business settings. A limited number of the EGs are quoted, relating to advertising elasticity, advertising weight effects, determinants of advertising impact and its duration, advertising reference price, effectiveness of TV, and advertising sensitivity to business cycles.]]></description>
<pubDate>1 Jun 2009</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Empirical Generalizations about Advertising Campaign Success]]></title>
<link>http://www.jar.warc.com/articles/TOC.asp?ArticleID=89482</link>
<author>Les Binet and Peter Field</author>
<description><![CDATA[This article summarises the findings in the authors' book: Marketing in the Era of Accountability 2007, based on their review of 880 IPA Award case history submissions. The article describes the analytical approach used, including the development of the assessment metric, the `Effectiveness Success Rate' ESR: the percentage of cases reporting `very large' increases in one or more of a number of business-related outcomes. Campaigns of various types were then compared in terms of ESR. Their key finding was that advertising effectiveness in terms of sales and profit is increased by: focusing on &#8220;hard&#8221; objectives; focusing on price, not volume; focusing on penetration, not loyalty; influencing consumers on an emotional, rather than rational level; creating &#8220;talk value&#8221;; having a high SOV relative to market share; including TV in the media mix; using a small number of channels in concert. These results, which generalize across a variety of conditions thus meeting the requirements for empirical generalisations, suggest that much common practice in advertising is suboptimal. Implications for marketing are drawn, and limitations of the study noted. From an issue of JAR devoted to `empirical generalisations': the papers were first presented at a conference at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania in December 2008.]]></description>
<pubDate>1 Jun 2009</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Whither the Click? How Online Advertising Works]]></title>
<link>http://www.jar.warc.com/articles/TOC.asp?ArticleID=89483</link>
<author>Gian M. Fulgoni and Marie Pauline M amp;#246;rn</author>
<description><![CDATA[The click rate on internet display advertisements averages only 0.1%. This article investigates whether this implies that online display ads are ineffective, or alternatively that they work in a way similar to brand advertising in other channels. The data source described was comScore's large internet panel. Exposures were passively tagged, and test and control groups of matched exposed/non-exposed were thus created. In 139 display campaigns, panellists' subsequent behaviour was monitored. Results: on average, visits to an advertised site increased 65% the week after exposure, and this lift continued at a declining rate during the next 2-3 weeks; this could not have been observed from clicks or cookie-tracking alone. The same pattern occurs across different industry groups, though at significantly different levels. Visiting to competitive sites also increases after display advertising. Searching activity both branded and generic increases significantly. When online and offline sales are combined, display advertising is found to have a modest effect, which is much enhanced when combined with search advertising. Three empirical generalisations are proposed: 1 even with low click rate, display ads can generate substantial lift in site visitation, trademark queries and online plus offline sales; 2 search ads are more effective than display ads, but the higher reach of display ads means that they can generate larger sales increases overall; 3 synergy with search advertising produces higher effects than either type of advertising separately. From an issue of JAR devoted to `empirical generalisations': the papers were first presented at a conference at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania in December 2008.]]></description>
<pubDate>1 Jun 2009</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The Efficacy of Brand-Execution Tactics in TV Advertising, Brand Placements, and Internet Advertising]]></title>
<link>http://www.jar.warc.com/articles/TOC.asp?ArticleID=89484</link>
<author>Jenni Romaniuk</author>
<description><![CDATA[This article examines brand-execution tactics showing and naming the brand in television, internet video advertising, and  brand placement within TV programs. Multiple research studies provide evidence that showing the brand early and often, and having at least one verbal mention as well, enhances brand recall. By contrast, the evidence is mixed for verbal frequency, and there is no support for the brand simply being present for a long time. These branding execution effects improve recall brand identification, but not persuasion. A review of current practice across a variety of media TV ads, TV product placements and comparable internet ads finds that, in different ways, ads in these media do not conform to the `best practice' suggested by the empirical generalisations reported in this paper. From an issue of JAR devoted to `empirical generalisations': the papers were first presented at a conference at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania in December 2008.]]></description>
<pubDate>1 Jun 2009</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Brand Placement Prominence: Good for Memory! Bad for Attitudes?]]></title>
<link>http://www.jar.warc.com/articles/TOC.asp?ArticleID=89485</link>
<author>Eva van Reijmersdal</author>
<description><![CDATA[This paper presents two laws about the effects of brand placement on audience reactions. Brand placement is the compensated inclusion of brands or brand identifiers within media programming. The first law states that brand placement prominence has a positive effect on brand memory. This effect has been found for placements in audiovisual media. However, placement prominence has a negative effect on brand attitude under specific circumstances when audiences are involved with or like the medium, or perceive that a selling attempt is being made. The second law states that brand placement can affect attitudes and behaviour without memory of the placement. This means that brand placement can have implicit effects. Implications of these brand placement laws are discussed. From an issue of JAR devoted to `empirical generalisations': the papers were first presented at a conference at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania in December 2008.]]></description>
<pubDate>1 Jun 2009</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The Role of Advertising in Word of Mouth]]></title>
<link>http://www.jar.warc.com/articles/TOC.asp?ArticleID=89486</link>
<author>Ed Keller and Brad Fay</author>
<description><![CDATA[The article discusses the relationship between advertising and Word-of-Mouth WOM. New empirical data collected by the authors over a three-year period, from their weekly TalkTrackR survey a nationally representative US sample of 700 per week show that 20 percent of WOM discussions refer to paid advertising in media. Further, the research finds that conversations that are &#8220;advertising influenced&#8221; in this way are significantly more likely to involve recommendations to buy or try a brand when compared with other WOM discussions about brands. These findings hold across a wide range of product categories. From an issue of JAR devoted to `empirical generalisations': the papers were first presented at a conference at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania in December 2008.]]></description>
<pubDate>1 Jun 2009</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[How Clutter Affects Advertising Effectiveness]]></title>
<link>http://www.jar.warc.com/articles/TOC.asp?ArticleID=89487</link>
<author>Peter Hammer, Erica Riebe, and Rachel Kennedy</author>
<description><![CDATA[This paper reports from a range of data sets including four new ones, described on how different levels of ad clutter in TV and radio affects how advertising works. Advertising avoidance is similar in low and high clutter environments, so when there is more clutter, audiences really do see more advertisements. Less clutter does not result in better brand identification, although audiences remember more of what they saw. Advertisements recalled in high clutter are generally of better quality and are more likeable on average: people remember what they liked. Overall, therefore, the impact of clutter is not large, especially when compared to creative elements of executions. From an issue of JAR devoted to `empirical generalisations': the papers were first presented at a conference at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania in December 2008.]]></description>
<pubDate>1 Jun 2009</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[A New Theorem for Optimizing the Advertising Budget]]></title>
<link>http://www.jar.warc.com/articles/TOC.asp?ArticleID=89488</link>
<author>Malcolm Wright</author>
<description><![CDATA[This article offers a new solution to the advertising budgeting problem, developed through empirical optimization. This method combines axioms with empirical generalizations to simulate profits. The resulting profit maps yield specific decision rules and general theorems. For advertising budgeting, empirical optimization shows that if advertising elasticity is 0.10 the optimal advertising budget is always 10 percent of gross profit. The corresponding theorem, that optimal advertising is advertising elasticity multiplied by gross profit, is new and is supported by an algebraic proof as well as empirical evidence. This is an advance on the advertising/sales budgeting rule, and a replacement for the long-established Dorfman-Steiner theorem of optimal advertising. Examples are given for various applications of the method. From an issue of JAR devoted to `empirical generalisations': the papers were first presented at a conference at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania in December 2008.]]></description>
<pubDate>1 Jun 2009</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Using Quasi-Experimental Data to Develop Empirical Generalizations for Persuasive Advertising]]></title>
<link>http://www.jar.warc.com/articles/TOC.asp?ArticleID=89489</link>
<author>J. Scott Armstrong and Sandeep Patnaik</author>
<description><![CDATA[This paper argues that &#8220;quasi-experimental data&#8221; provide a valid and relatively low-cost approach toward developing empirical generalizations EGs. These data are obtained from studies in which some key variables have been controlled in the design. These EGs are described as normative statements, i.e., &#8220;evidence-based principles.&#8221; Using data from 240 pairs of print advertisements from five editions of the Which Ad Pulled Best series, the authors analyzed 56 of the advertising principles listed from Persuasive Advertising by J. Scott Armstrong New York: Palgrave Macmillan, forthcoming. These data controlled for target market, product, size of the advertisement, media, and in half the cases, for the brand. The advertisements differed, however, e.g. in illustrations, headlines, and text. The findings from the quasi-experimental analyses were consistent with field experiments for all seven principles where such comparisons were possible. Furthermore, for 26 principles they unanimously corroborated the available laboratory experiments as well as the meta-analyses for seven principles. In short, the quasi-experimental findings always agreed with experimental findings, even though the quasi-experimental analyses, and some of the experimental analyses, involved small samples, and often used different criteria. From an issue of JAR devoted to `empirical generalisations': the papers were first presented at a conference at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania in December 2008.]]></description>
<pubDate>1 Jun 2009</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The In-Store &#8220;Audience&#8221;]]></title>
<link>http://www.jar.warc.com/articles/TOC.asp?ArticleID=89490</link>
<author>Herb Sorensen</author>
<description><![CDATA[The in-store audience is only superficially similar to other audiences because the dominant purpose of this &#8220;audience&#8221; is specifically to make immediate purchases. Efficiency is a major consideration to the shopper audience. The author discusses one store design/layout issue, aisleness; it is shown that poor store design can negatively impact shopper efficiency and inhibit the use of in-store media. The empirical generalization that the faster shoppers spend, the more the store will sell is discussed and supported. Finally, the author considers how in-store digital media can accelerate shopping speed, and thereby total store sales. From an issue of JAR devoted to `empirical generalisations': the papers were first presented at a conference at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania in December 2008.]]></description>
<pubDate>1 Jun 2009</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Behavioral Effects of Digital Signage]]></title>
<link>http://www.jar.warc.com/articles/TOC.asp?ArticleID=89491</link>
<author>Raymond R. Burke</author>
<description><![CDATA[Digital signs have become an important new channel for communicating with consumers in retail shopping environments. An analysis of academic and commercial experiments reveals that in-store advertising effectiveness depends on both the content of the message appeal type and product category and the context and quality of exposure audience need state, traffic speed and direction, message frequency and duration. Shoppers are most responsive to messages that relate to the task at hand and their current need state, and least responsive to traditional brand messages. From an issue of JAR devoted to `empirical generalisations': the papers were first presented at a conference at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania in December 2008.]]></description>
<pubDate>1 Jun 2009</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Short-Term Effects of Advertising: Some Well-Established Empirical Law-Like Patterns]]></title>
<link>http://www.jar.warc.com/articles/TOC.asp?ArticleID=89492</link>
<author>Leslie Wood</author>
<description><![CDATA[Extensive work with single-source data since the 1960s has consistently shown that advertising has a pronounced short-term effect on sales, that this effect decays over time, and that creative copy is the largest contributor toward effectiveness. This article shares the foundations for these generalizations as well as more current examples that use Project Apollo data, based on the AdImpact metric described. Other findings from the Apollo data, which are new, are that multiple brands with many sub-brands may achieve very different results from their sub-brand campaigns, and that advertising environments such as TV programme genres also make a difference. From an issue of JAR devoted to `empirical generalisations': the papers were first presented at a conference at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania in December 2008.]]></description>
<pubDate>1 Jun 2009</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The Spacing Effects of Multiple Exposures on Memory: Implications for Advertising Scheduling]]></title>
<link>http://www.jar.warc.com/articles/TOC.asp?ArticleID=89493</link>
<author>Alan G. Sawyer, Hayden Noel, and Chris Janiszewski</author>
<description><![CDATA[The &#8220;spacing effect&#8221; refers to the fact that longer intervals between exposures such as successive presentations of online pop-ups result in better learning than shorter intervals. This article offers nine empirical generalizations EGs about the overall size of the spacing effect and how it varies under different conditions. Overall, spacing effects are found to be robust, statistically significant and large. The EGs are based on results of a meta-analysis of laboratory experiments in cognitive psychology and marketing. Several implications of the results are proposed for planning advertising schedules for the new media as well as more traditional media. From an issue of JAR devoted to `empirical generalisations': the papers were first presented at a conference at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania in December 2008.]]></description>
<pubDate>1 Jun 2009</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Is Once Really Enough? Making Generalizations about Advertising's Convex Sales Response Function]]></title>
<link>http://www.jar.warc.com/articles/TOC.asp?ArticleID=89494</link>
<author>Jennifer Taylor, Rachel Kennedy, and Byron Sharp</author>
<description><![CDATA[This article examines the generalizability of convex-shaped advertising response functions. Using single-source data, the authors analyzed the response functions of brands in four consumer goods categories. This study supports the prior finding that convex response functions are typical, but not universal. While the convex response function is found to apply across a range of conditions, more work is needed to understand measurement issues, exceptions, and boundary conditions. From an issue of JAR devoted to `empirical generalisations': the papers were first presented at a conference at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania in December 2008.]]></description>
<pubDate>1 Jun 2009</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[An Update of Real-World TV Advertising Tests]]></title>
<link>http://www.jar.warc.com/articles/TOC.asp?ArticleID=89495</link>
<author>Ye Hu, Leonard M. Lodish, Abba M. Krieger, and Babak Hayati</author>
<description><![CDATA[An analysis is performed on the results of 50 recent real-world TV advertising tests conducted by Information Resources, Inc. to update the findings of Lodish et al. [Journal of Marketing Research 32, 2 1995: 125&#8211;39] and Hu, Lodish, and Krieger Hu et al. [Journal of Advertising Research 47, 3 2007: 341&#8211;53]. Overall, the improvement of TV advertising sales effectiveness from media weight increase is significant for established products, consistent with Hu et al.'s finding based on tests completed after 1995, further confirming that TV advertising effectiveness has improved during recent years. The new results continue to confirm that using valid and reliable pretests to assess TV advertising effectiveness should be an important practice in the industry. From an issue of JAR devoted to `empirical generalisations': the papers were first presented at a conference at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania in December 2008.]]></description>
<pubDate>1 Jun 2009</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The Total Long-Term Sales Effects of Advertising: Lessons from Single Source]]></title>
<link>http://www.jar.warc.com/articles/TOC.asp?ArticleID=89496</link>
<author>Kate Newstead, Jennifer Taylor, Rachel Kennedy, and Byron Sharp</author>
<description><![CDATA[This article brings together the knowledge gained from two different approaches to analyzing single source data: aggregate-level experimental split-cable tests and individual-level analysis without experimental controls. From very different approaches, two common findings emerge: a if advertising is to be sales effective in the long term, it must first work in the short term, b advertising typically has a half-life of three to four weeks. For scheduling, a continuity strategy appears preferable. There may be conditions under which bursting is more appropriate, but these circumstances are not yet at all well documented. From an issue of JAR devoted to `empirical generalisations': the papers were first presented at a conference at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania in December 2008.]]></description>
<pubDate>1 Jun 2009</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Television: Back to the Future]]></title>
<link>http://www.jar.warc.com/articles/TOC.asp?ArticleID=89497</link>
<author>Byron Sharp, Virginia Beal, and Martin Collins</author>
<description><![CDATA[TV keeps changing, and viewers have more alternatives than ever. Yet television-viewing behaviour continues to follow some law-like patterns that have remained in place over the past 40 years. These empirical generalizations suggest that TV will remain the preeminent fast and vast advertising medium, if a more complex and expensive one. Knowledge of these empirical laws&#8212;including the special reach of high-rating programs, channel loyalty, low program repeat rates, lack of segmented audiences, and weak genre loyalty&#8212;can be used to guide advertisers in buying the most effective TV schedules. They give us confidence that TV will remain an effective advertising vehicle for many years to come. From an issue of JAR devoted to `empirical generalisations': the papers were first presented at a conference at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania in December 2008.]]></description>
<pubDate>1 Jun 2009</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Empirical Evidence of TV Advertising Effectiveness]]></title>
<link>http://www.jar.warc.com/articles/TOC.asp?ArticleID=89498</link>
<author>Joel Rubinson</author>
<description><![CDATA[In this article, three hypotheses were examined that, if accepted, would lead us to conclude that the effectiveness of TV advertising has declined over time. Seven different databases&#8212;accounting for a total of 388 case histories&#8212;were accessed to conduct a form of meta-analysis to address this issue. These databases include results from advertising-weight tests, marketing-mix modeling, copy testing, return-on-marketing analysis from quasi-experimental design, and media-planning tools. The evidence we studied does not support the acceptance of any of these hypotheses, leading us to conclude that impressions from TV advertising appear to be as effective as ever, even possibly increasing in effectiveness. In terms of specific marketing objectives, the evidence suggests that the impact of TV on sales lift appears to operate primarily by generating brand awareness, suggesting that an effective marketing plan that uses TV should do so in conjunction with multiple forms of marketing in order to impact all stages of the consumer purchase process. From an issue of JAR devoted to `empirical generalisations': the papers were first presented at a conference at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania in December 2008.]]></description>
<pubDate>1 Jun 2009</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[The Enduring Influence of TV Advertising and Communications Clout Patterns in the Global Marketplace]]></title>
<link>http://www.jar.warc.com/articles/TOC.asp?ArticleID=89499</link>
<author>Oscar Jamhouri and Marek L. Winiarz</author>
<description><![CDATA[Historically television has been one of the most powerful marketing contacts. But the recent proliferation of TV channels and influence of digital contacts resulted in audience fragmentation and additional media clutter. These caused speculation that the influence of TV is waning. Based on the last four years' data across the globe, the empirical evidence refutes that conclusion. The data show that TV retains its clout among target audiences. Increased digital media influence has not caused a decrease of TV influence. TV's clout is greater in Asia than in Europe of North America, and is influential among the young, e.g. in personal care. However, influence of any communication contact varies by market. Study of an electronics category across 12 global markets shows some consistent patterns, varying mainly by geography and culture but not on most other variables, including TV advertising. From an issue of JAR devoted to `empirical generalisations': the papers were first presented at a conference at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania in December 2008.]]></description>
<pubDate>1 Jun 2009</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Digital Video Recorders and Inadvertent Advertising Exposure]]></title>
<link>http://www.jar.warc.com/articles/TOC.asp?ArticleID=89500</link>
<author>Erik du Plessis</author>
<description><![CDATA[It has been argued that the 30-second TV advertisement is dead because owners of digital video recorders fast-forward though advertisements. This denies the speed with which neurons classify things that are observed based on previous exposures cognition. This article argues that it is not the behaviour of fast-forwarding that matters, but the memory left behind by an exposure to an advertisement. To fast forward one must give attention to the TV screen. By giving attention people not only recognize the advertisement, but in the process of recognition re+cognition, they experience similar emotional memories as when they first cognized the advertisement. This hypothesis is demonstrated by an experiment in South Africa, and supported by other evidence elsewhere editors' note. From an issue of JAR devoted to `empirical generalisations': the papers were first presented at a conference at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania in December 2008.]]></description>
<pubDate>1 Jun 2009</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Generalizations about Advertising Effectiveness in Markets]]></title>
<link>http://www.jar.warc.com/articles/TOC.asp?ArticleID=89501</link>
<author>Gerard J. Tellis</author>
<description><![CDATA[Based on over 260 estimates, the mean elasticity of sales or market share to advertising is 0.1 percent. Another 450 field experiments suggest that changes in media, product, target segments, advertising scheduling, and advertising content are more likely to yield changes in sales than do changes in advertising weight. Numerous other studies suggest that advertising wear-in does not exist or occurs quite rapidly while advertising wear-out occurs more slowly. Details of and differences in these results by condition are discussed in this article. From an issue of JAR devoted to `empirical generalisations': the papers were first presented at a conference at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania in December 2008.]]></description>
<pubDate>1 Jun 2009</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title><![CDATA[Advertising Empirical Generalizations: Implications for Research and Action]]></title>
<link>http://www.jar.warc.com/articles/TOC.asp?ArticleID=89502</link>
<author>Yoram Jerry Wind and Byron Sharp</author>
<description><![CDATA[A special conference on empirical generalizations EGs in advertising led to this special issue of the Journal of Advertising Research. It also generated a representative selection of 23 EGs that give a sense of how strong our scientific knowledge is about advertising, and where the gaps lie. These EGs are listed and classified in order of perceived importance and on two dimensions: confidence validity and relevance. While real advances in knowledge have been achieved, the list highlights significant knowledge gaps, particularly concerning advertising in the new fragmented interactive-media world. We surveyed advertising thought leaders on which of these empirical laws they felt were most important and most certain. Many of our empirical laws suffer from inadequate knowledge concerning the conditions over which they do and do not generalize. Conference summary article, from an issue of JAR devoted to `empirical generalisations': the papers were first presented at a conference at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania in December 2008.]]></description>
<pubDate>1 Jun 2009</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
