Research Design and FindingsResearch Design and FindingsFrom the article, there were 2 different studies that were done to examine the questions on “How new commercials do not meet expectation”. The first study had addressed the question on creativity performance, creativity expectation, disconfirmation, and ad and brand attitudes. There were 4 hypotheses for study 1, it includes H1a : The perceived creativity of a brand’s prior advertisements increase expectation of creativity in its new ad. H1b: The discrepancy between expectation and performance with regard to the perceived creativity of the ad significantly affects ad attitudes. H1c: Ad attitudes mediate the effects of a discrepancy between creativity expectations and perceived performance on brand attitudes. And lastly, H1d: Negative disconfirmation of creativity predictions exerts greater influences on ad attitudes than does positive disconfirmation. Equal amount of males and females which came up to a total of 80 participants with average age of 21.01years were recruited in a university. All participants were informed to watch 5 commercial from Audi from 2007 to its new ad in 2011. To each ad, participants need to evaluate according to its creativity. At the end of the survey, the instructions suggest that Audi is running a new ad in 2011 and participants were asked to predict the creativity of the ad. For creative performance and expectation, the method that was used to measure was using a scale of 0 to 100 with higher scores indicating greater creativity. As for disconfirmation, objective disconfirmation and subjective disconfirmation were tested. For objective disconfirmation, the expected ratings were deducted from the performance rating. Positive scores indicate the ad is better than expected, while negative is the opposite. For subjective disconfirmation, questions like “ The ad is better/worse than I expected” were asked. After evaluation of the result, H1a, H1b, and H1c hypotheses were supported. However, H1d was not supported.
The second important characteristic in ad campaign is humor. The hypotheses that were tested range from H2a: The perceived humor of a brand prior advertisement increase expectation of humor in its new ad. H2b: The discrepancy between expectation and performance with regard to the perceived humor of the ad significantly affects ad attitudes. H2c: Ad attitudes mediate the effects of the discrepancy between humor expectation and perceived performance on brand attitudes. H2d: Negative disconfirmation of humor expectation exerts greater influences on attitudes than does positive disconfirmation. In study 2, the ads from Ikea were used to testify the result as the ad was the 2011 recipient of the prestigious Advertiser of the Year Award. The method used for
s of this experiment is similar to that used in study 1, as the new ad was a 2012 recipient of the Advertiser of Year Award. All results are expressed as percentages, of which there were 3%, which is larger than the final statistical model had predicted.
These results suggest that the negative effects of humor can influence brand attitudes that are based on objective characteristics of the brand. Specifically, they imply that humor influences the way customers view brand interactions, and that even with the same target image it still results to the opposite conclusion. Such a conclusion is supported by data from social psychology research, as shown above.
More to say The new study was the first to show that the negative effects of the brand ad can, by itself, impact public attitudes about its products (as shown in the chart). A recent study of ad campaigns from the Internet showed that those who showed better negative ratings were more likely to spend more time on ads, but this did not follow the exact same pattern as the effect described above. It is therefore not surprising that, given the high numbers of negative ratings, advertisers continue to buy from brands who have less negative ratings than their fans, which is not necessarily a bad thing.
More to say Our goal in this study was to quantify a new “brand phenomenon”. Rather than simply demonstrating that one product has an effect on the perceived value (or cost), it instead gave each of us an insight into the brand phenomenon, which includes our perceptions of who we want the brand to be used to and how it should play within the context of our overall brand strategy. These insights enabled us to assess whether and how the new advertising approach (such as H2a) would be able to improve all three of our customer interactions and achieve any goal for each of our product segment.
More to say The new study is the first and only direct to find that the negative effects of brand are not the only characteristic of brands, but that the approach is also associated with higher engagement. Since this is the first study that actually used our data from the Internet we can also focus on another important aspect of this study: the relationship between company and customer (the “measurement” of how positive or negative a company is) with regards to the actual engagement of the new ad. Although this study only sought out the effects of ad slogans that had the same name in the campaign but had the same value, this approach shows that other advertising approaches can be used in order to change the perception of customer as well as increasing the perceived value of brand slogans.
In conclusion, the positive effects of the new brand approach are not only limited to advertising alone, but can be applied to campaigns as well, such that the negative effects are far in the future. Specifically, we propose that negative impressions of the brand can be reduced and the perceived value of brand slogans changed. In general, the negative effect of the brand ad changes the reputation of consumers. This has implications for the way they perceive the brand and are presented for future decisions based