a

 

.‘nﬁgégn. ﬂ . . . . .f u ,éﬁmﬁﬁi . .‘ gm

12“»
C)

T,

llBRARY
Michigan State
University

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

What Does 'Folk Wisdom' About Deceptiveness
in Advertising Say About Consumers'
Willingness-To-Buy? The Case of DRTV

presented by
Karan J. Wyre
has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for

Ph. D. degree in Advertising

 

 

Major professor

 

Datew

MS U is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

MAR 0 4 2005

 

322505

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIRC/DateDuepes-sz

WHAT DOES ‘FOLK WISDOM’ ABOUT DECEPTIVENESS
IN ADVERTISING SAY ABOUT CONSUMERS’
WILLINGNESS-TO-BUY? THE CASE OF DRTV

By

Karan J. Wyre

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial ﬁilﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Mass Media PhD. Program
College of Communication Arts and Sciences

2001

 

ABSTRACT
WHAT DOES ‘FOLK WISDOM’ ABOUT DECEPTIVENESS IN ADVERTISING
SAY ABOUT CONSUMERS’ WILLINGNESS—TO-BUY? THE CASE OF DRTV
By
Karan J. Wyre

Direct response television advertising, or DRTV advertising, is a commercial
format which involves the marketing of products and services directly to the consumer
(e.g., via a toll-free telephone number). Because DRTV advertising combines two
advertising methods that consumers perceive as deceptive and misleading (that is,
television and direct marketing), this study examined consumers’ beliefs about the tactics
used in traditional DRTV short-form advertising, the nature of the products typically
featured in such advertising, and the motives of advertisers who rely upon the format to
sell their goods. The main goal of the study was to determine whether consumers hold a
set of culturally-shared beliefs (or, folk wisdom) about the deceptiveness of the DRTV
short advertising format. A secondary goal was to assess whether two relatively new and
unfamiliar features that have recently come into use in hybrid DRTV commercials (i.e.,
commercials that are a blend of direct response and brand image advertising) increase the
persuasiveness of traditional DRTV short form advertising among certain groups of
consumers. The new features examined were the use of website addresses, and major
advertisers utilizing the format to advertise a well-known brand.

Consumers’ beliefs about DRTV advertising were measured using a newly-
developed scale (the DRTV Deceptiveness Beliefs measure). Factor analysis of the scale

identiﬁed seven dimensions of beliefs about DRTV deceptiveness.

The study found that adult consumers do appear to hold a set of culturally-shared,
slightly deceptive beliefs about the nature of DRTV short form advertising. Additionally,
these beliefs have a slight inﬂuence on individuals’ willingness-to—buy ﬁ'om DRTV short
form advertising (the persuasiveness measure) when website addresses are included in
these ads, though no such inﬂuence was found when major brands are featured. The study
also found that neither having past purchase experience with DRTV advertising, nor
demographic variables (such as gender, income and education) appear to inﬂuence
consumers’ DRTV deceptiveness beliefs, or their willingness-to-buy from DRTV

advertising when unfamiliar features are included in these ads.

Copyright by
KARAN J. WYRE
2001

Dedicated to

My Beautiﬁil, Loving Husband,

Leon

Our Wonderful Children,

Louis Kyle and Leon, Jr.

My Loving Mother,

Jacqueline Kailimai

and

To the Memory of My Beloved Father,

Bailey E. Kailimai

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would ﬁrst like to express my deepest gratitude to my Committee Chairperson
and Dissertation Director, Dr. Bruce Vanden Bergh. Throughout my studies at Michigan
State University, you have always provided me with whatever assistance I needed. Your
helpful insight, guidance and continued support through the Masters and Doctorate are
appreciated more than you will ever know. Many, many thanks, Bruce! To my other
committee members, Dr. Keith Adler, Dr. L. Sue Carter, and Dr. Lucinda Davenport, in
addition to your guidance, your patience and unwavering support through my ‘hiatuses’
are what helped me to forge ahead and to complete this work. My heartfelt thanks to each
ofyou.

Thanks also to others on campus who provided me with assistance and support.
I especially want to thank Mary Beth Heeder for your assistance in helping me to recruit
students for my study. I also wish to thank the Advertising Department secretaries for
their many years of kind words and support.

Lastly, but most especially, 1 wish to thank my wonderﬁll, loving family and
friends for their continuing support and conﬁdence in me. To my mom, Jackie, who
encouraged me through all the difﬁcult times I have faced in my life -— thank you for
believing in me. To my brothers Neil, Alonzo and Craig, and my sisters Candy, Jeri and
Shari, and my cousin, Daun, thank you all for your faith in me. You have helped me in so
many ways, and it is greatly appreciated. I also wish to thank my cousins Bertha, Denise
and Victoria who helped to plant in me the seed of interest in higher education when I was
very, very young. Also, I thank my sister-in-law, Lisa, and Aunt Ada for all of those
Thursdays that you babysat Louis Kyle. To my friend Marilyn and her daughters, thanks
for your encouragement and friendship whenever I needed, be it 8 in the morning or 11 at
night. Finally, I want to thank my beautiful, loving and wonderful husband, Leon (and
God for making me smart enough to invite you into my life). You have shown me more
love, support, and patience than any person has a right to ask for. You have also taught
me the meaning of so many, wonderful things —— a best friend, a soul mate, a mentor, a
father, a husband, a partner . . . thank you so very much, my love! And to my son, Louis
Kyle, who’s kisses and hugs are always just what mommy needs, and my step-son, Leon,
Jr., who’s bright future I am so proud to be a part of, I thank you both so much for being
what centers our lives.

vi

' I ~ ‘ . . I I v , . in. w n .
' " "' 11:11.2!)I1mra£1:‘f.‘.;,..l‘.i..lngy tr»
4 . , :2

O
in
IL
7Q.
at
{9'11
2:}
.‘3'
”ti
3‘:
j"?
.-._,
at!
”3':
~33
__5

~. "r . - ,i.uu,0 H
"mum ‘01."! ms" t 'f' 2 .'
. A J.) ‘- ‘ ’ ‘

iim'ff."
v

“ I'O

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................... ix
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................... x
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION........... ......................................... 1
CHAPTER [1
LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................. 8
A Brief History of DRTV Advertising and An Overview of
Related Consumer Advertising Research ............................... 8
The Landscape of Television Advertising —— Will Hybrids Change It? ....... 13

Consumer Responses to DRTV Advertisements and Advertiser Uncertainty . . . 19
The Inﬂuence of Consumers’ Beliefs about

Advertising on DRTV Responses ................................... 23
Consumers’ Beliefs about Direct Marketing Advertising .................. 27
Consumer Evaluations and Beliefs About Television Advertising ........... 29
The Potential Impact of Consumers’ Beliefs on
DRTV Advertising Responses ..................................... 32
Research on Consumer Perceptions of Deceptiveness in Advertising ....... 38
Consumer Perceptions of Deceptiveness in Advertisers’ Motives ........... 42
Consumer Perceptions, Beliefs and Attitudes About the
Nature of DRTV Products ........................................ 47
Consumers’ Cognitive Processing of Advertisements .......................... 50
The Development of DRTV Advertising Belief Schemas and the PKM ....... 55
The Potential Impact of Curiosity on DRTV Deceptiveness Schemas ........ 58
The PKM: A Broader Perspective on Consumer Cognitions ............... 63
Statement of the Problem ............................................... 64
Study Hypotheses .................................................... 66
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODS ............................................. 77
Sample Selection ..................................................... 77
Measurement Instrument ............................................... 79
Development of the DRTV Deceptiveness Beliefs Measure ............... 80
Development of New Advertising Features and
Willingness-to-Buy Measures ...................................... 82
Measurement of Personal and Demographic Variables ................... 84
Measurement Issues and Pretesting of the Instrument .................... 84
Instrument Administration Procedure ...................................... 85
Data Analysis ........................................................ 87

vii

CHAPTERIV

RESULTS......... ................................................. 91
Factor Analysis Results ................................................ 92
Respondent Proﬁle for Factor Analysis Results ......................... 93
Underlying Structure of DRTV Tactics Beliefs ......................... 95
Underlying Structure of DRTV Product Character Beliefs ............... 100
Underlying Structure of DRTV Advertisers’ Motives Beliefs ............. 103
Main Study Analyses ................................................. 105
Respondent Proﬁle for the Main Study .............................. 105
DRTV Deceptiveness Beliefs Scale Reliability .............................. 107
Descriptive Statistics for Main Study Variables ............................. 108
Research Questions and Study Hypotheses ................................. 113
Do Consumers’ DRTV Beliefs Reﬂect ‘Folk Wisdom’? ................. 113
Do Past Purchase and Demographic Variables Aﬁ’ect DRTV Beliefs? ....... 116
Can Unfamiliar Features Increase Willingness to Buy
Among Certain Respondents? ..................................... 118
Can ‘Positive’ Unfamiliar Features Persuade More than ‘Neutral’ Ones? ..... 123
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS .................................. 127
Overview of Findings and Implications .................................... 127
Do DRTV Beliefs Reﬂect ‘Folk Wisdom’? ........................... 128
Do Past Purchase and Demographics Aﬂ‘ect DRTV Beliefs? .............. 129
Can New Features Increase Persuasion in DRTV
Ads Among Certain Groups? ..................................... 131
Are Positive New Features More Persuasive than Neutral Ones? .......... 132
Limitations of the Study ............................................... 132
Recommendations for Future Research ................................... 134
APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNAIRE BOOKLET ....................................... 136
APPENDIX B
FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONNAIRE ................................... 152
REFERENCES .......................................................... 154

viii

Table 2.1

Table 4.1

Table 4.2

Table 4.3

Table 4.4

Table 4.5

Table 4.6

Table 4.7

Table 4.8

Table 4.9

Table 4.10

Table 4.11

Table 4.12

LIST OF TABLES

Partial List of Direct Marketing Myths Held by Consumers ................. 28
Respondent Proﬁle - Factor Analysis Sample .......................... 94
DRTV Tactic Beliefs Item Summary ................................. 96
DRTV Product Character Beliefs Item Summary ...................... 101
DRTV Advertisers’ Motives Beliefs Item Summary .................... 104
Respondent Proﬁle - Main Study .................................. 106
DRTV Deceptiveness Beliefs Scale Reliabilities ....................... 107
DRTV Deceptiveness Beliefs Scale Item Summary ..................... 109
Descriptive Statistics for Three Main Variables ........................ 1 12

Frequency of Responses for Increased Willingness to Buy from DRTV Ads . . 113

DRTV Deceptiveness Beliefs Correlation Matrix ...................... 114
Mean-rank and U-Statistics for Personal and Demographic Variables ........ 119
Rank Sum and Z-Statistics for Positive and Neutral Features .............. 125

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 The Persuasion Knowledge Model .................................. 52

Figure 2.2 A Hypothetical Consumer’s DRTV Deceptiveness Belief Schema ........... 59

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Ever since the advent of television in the 1940's, the effectiveness of the direct
response television (hereafter DRTV) short commercial format has made it a mainstay of
many direct marketing advertising programs. Yet, despite its positive qualities (as seen by
advertisers), DRTV has also long been a target of criticism and consumer suspicion. In
the early'days of television, for example, station managers looked upon direct marketing
as a necessary evil. Although products using the format sold successfully (and beneﬁtted
TV stations), they were often viewed as unreliable; and the commercials advertising them
were considered unsophisticated (e. g, Eicoﬁ’, 1988; Auchmutey, 1985; and Cleaver,
1984). In 1960, the myriad offers for records, salad makers, slicers, dicers, knives and
vitamins, replete with exaggerated claims, also drew the attention of the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC).'

It has also been suggested that the decades of consumer exposure to a variety of
executional elements typically used in DRTV advertisements (e. g, product
demonstrations, celebrity endorsements, testimonials, etc.) has led many consumers to

become suspicious of this particular format (Witek, 1981). This ‘lack of trust’ notion was

 

‘Eicoﬁ’ (1988) notes that FCC Chairman Newton Minnow issued a directive
asserting that stations carrying commercials more than 120 seconds long would ﬁnd it
difﬁcult to obtain a license renewal. In addition, Eicoﬁ' states that, “Minnow pointed out
that because of the high percentage of ﬂy-by-night entrepreneurs using television for direct
marketing, the FCC would frown upon broadcasters that allowed direct marketers to use
their facilities,” (p. 161).

generally corroborated in a recent study by Korgoankar et al., (1997). In their study of
consumers’ overall direct marketing attitudes, these researchers found that individuals
who were the most critical of direct marketing singled-out DRTV advertising as the least
inﬂuential method of advertising (as compared to other media and word of mouth). This
ﬁnding led these researchers to conclude that other direct marketing advertising methods
may be a better choice than DRTV.

Recently, however, a new type of short-form direct response commercial has come
increasingly into use. Hybrids, as they are called, have been hailed by DRTV practitioners
as the television advertising format of the ﬁrture (Bliwas, 2000). In contrast to traditional
DRTV short form commercials, hybrids have improved production quality, and use
creative executions which are more similar to television brand image advertisements. As a
result of improvements like these, and other beneﬁts over-and-above the accountability
generally offered by direct response advertising methods, practitioners contend that there
exists a high degree of diversity among the types of companies currently using short-form
DRTV advertising.2

Yet, admittedly there is still some reluctance on the part of many major advertisers
to use either type of DRTV short-form advertising (Bliwas, 2000; Douglas, 1997). One
indicator of this skepticism is the fact that television analysts foresee network spending, a
mainstay for television brand image advertising, continuing to dominate over the next
several years (Consoli, 1999). Although there may be many reasons for advertisers to be

skeptical, one possibility is a general lack of knowledge regarding how consumers

 

2Use of infomercials, a longer form DRTV advertisements has also increased.

perceive DRTV short-form advertising. This issue is based on the fact that there has been
very little published empirical research on how consumers respond to this format (N owak,
1992).

However, if consumers’ cognitive responses toward other, related forms of
advertising are any indication of how they respond to DRTV short-form commercials,
then advertisers may have good reason to be skeptical of this format. This is because
research examining consumer perceptions and attitudes toward advertising, in general; on
television; and toward direct marketing, in general, has identiﬁed a variety of negative
issues facing these areas. These ﬁndings, which have persisted since the seminal study
conducted by Bauer and Greyser (1968), generally conclude that consumers have
unfavorable views of advertising.

More recent studies have found that consumers are critical of speciﬁc claims made
in advertising (e.g., Newell, Goldsmith and Banzhaf, 1998; Ford, Smith and Swasy, 1990),
of the increased level of competition among ﬁrms in the direct marketing industry, and
that they perceive direct marketing efforts largely as an invasion of privacy (e.g., Akaah,
Korgoankar and Lund, 1995). Consumers have also been found to hold speciﬁc negative
beliefs and perceptions about television advertising. These include the belief that it is
offensive, and that there is too much of it (Alwitt and Prabhaker, 1992), and that it is silly,
fussing over trivial differences and insulting of an average consumer’s intelligence; it is
also perceived as deceptive, boring, annoying, and/or in bad taste (Mittal, 1994).

Some suggest that these kinds of issues may culminate in a consumer back-lash
effect toward advertising, in general (O’Leary, 2000; Voight, 2000; Shevitz, 1999). More

speciﬁcally, because the DRTV short-format continues to proliferate, this format may be a

prime candidate for such a reaction. If this occurs, the reason may be due to the
possibility that, over time, consumers have acquired ‘folk wisdom’ about the
deceptiveness of various aspects of the DRTV short commercial format. While no
empirical evidence of the existence of folk wisdom about DRTV advertising has been
found, anecdotal evidence is offered in the numerous parodies and satirical skits performed
in comedy acts on television. These skits typically make ﬁrn of the ever-present, fast-
talking announcer boasting inﬂated claims about useless products which are shoddily-
manufactured and intended to separate unwitting consumers from their money in return
for little or nothing of value. A prime example of this is the classic I Love Lucy episode
when Lucy is hired to hawk a vitamin product in a DRTV commercial.

The persuasion knowledge model, or PKM, is a cognitive processing model which
contends that, over time, consumers develop ‘folk wisdom’, or a set of culturally-shared
beliefs about how persuasion works (F riestad and Wright, 1994). They rely upon these
beliefs (commonly called ‘schemas’) in an effort to evaluate advertisements they are
exposed to, and to cope with them. A key point of this model is that it also holds that
such beliefs are triggered by the use of familiar executional elements, or tactics, in
advertisements. When these beliefs are triggered, they may evoke related sets of beliefs in
consumers’ minds which, in tum, lead to broader evaluations (or attitudes) of a speciﬁc
object.

Given DRTV advertisers’ long-term reliance upon (and commonplace use of)
various executional elements with which consumers are likely to be very familiar (e. g., a
toll-free telephone number, free offers, testimonials, etc.), many of these elements may

have come to be construed as tactics associated (perhaps exclusively) with this format.

Furthermore, given the long history of criticism toward the DRTV short advertising
format, it is conceivable that people have developed folk beliefs about the format which
may reﬂect some aspects of these criticisms.

Learning the nature of consumers’ beliefs about DRTV short-form advertising, and
whether they reﬂect folk wisdom, seems an especially important issue for major
advertisers who are trying to weigh the potential beneﬁts associated with using the format
against the possibility that consumers may not respond positively to ‘their’ use of the
format. A second important reason for determining whether cultural folk beliefs exist for
DRTV deceptiveness is that, if they are found to exist, this could be seen as support for
the ‘caveat emptor’ position currently held by federal regulators on the issue of advertising
deception. If consumers do tend to hold deceptiveness beliefs about certain aspects of
DRTV advertising, this might indicate that the format should be considered in the same
legal light as tactics like advertising puffery.3

Therefore, the goal of the present study will be to investigate consumers’ beliefs
about certain aspects of short-form DRTV advertising. Speciﬁcally, the study will attempt
to: 1) determine whether a DRTV deceptiveness beliefs schema exists for adult
consumers; and if found, 2) investigate its potential inﬂuence on consumers’ expressed
willingness to purchase from DRTV advertisements (i.e., the dependent variable).

The dependent variable in this study is also intended to assess the capability of

 

3Preston (1975) notes that, by legal deﬁnition, puffery is any advertising or sales
presentation which praises the item to be sold with objective opinions, superlatives, or
exaggerations vaguely and generally, while stating no speciﬁc facts. He also notes that the
Federal Trade Commission’s primary action toward puffery has been to protect its use, on
the basis that “certain falsities known as puffery are [viewed as] non-deceptive in the face
of strong reasons for believing they are actually deceptive,” (pg. 15).

two recent features of hybrid-type DRTV commercials (namely, web site addresses and
major advertisers’ brands‘) to signiﬁcantly increase individuals’ willingness-to-buy when
they perceive the DRTV format itself as deceptive. If this does occur, it may indicate that
the mere addition of executional elements that consumers are unfamiliar with may, in
effect, prevent a DRTV ‘deceptiveness schema’ from being triggered in a consumer’s
mind. On the other hand, if willingness-to-buy when hybrid features are included (along
with traditional tactics) does not increase signiﬁcantly when the format itself is perceived
as deceptive, this may indicate that the use of unfamiliar features in short-form DRTV
commercials are not capable of bypassing a DRTV deceptiveness schema. In this case,
according to the PKM, individuals’ coping responses would be likely to be evoked for
hybrid-type as well as traditional DRTV advertisements. Either occurrence, however,
would be valuable information for advertisers considering the use of DRTV short-form
advertising.

Chapter II will begin by presenting a brief history of the short-form DRTV
commercial’s use, as well as the criticisms which have surrounded it and related aspects of
advertising. This chapter will also review the available consumer behavior and marketing
literature regarding consumer beliefs research with respect to advertising in general, in
direct marketing and on television. Finally, it will present the framework which this study

will use in order to investigate consumers’ beliefs about DRTV short-form advertising.

 

‘These are considered new features because both have only recently begun to be
used in DRTV commercials, and therefore beliefs about them are not likely to have been
formed as yet. This is likely to be the case because: 1) web site addresses only began to be
included in such ads within the past several years; and 2) with only a few industries having
begun using the format, major brands are also still a relatively new (and unfamiliar) feature
in DRTV commercials.

Chapter III will present the methodology for this study. The results will be
presented in Chapter IV, followed by a discussion of the ﬁndings and conclusions in

Chapter V.

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

A Brief History of DRTV Advertising and An Overview of
Related Consumer Advertising Research

Direct response television advertising, or DRTV advertising, is a commercial
format which involves the marketing of products directly to the consumer (e. g., via a toll-
free telephone number). Having come into existence with the advent of television, short-
form DRTV commercials have changed little since 1946, when Daniel Rubin, one of the
ﬁrst marketers to use this type of commercial, ﬁlmed pitchmen from Atlantic City’s
boardwalk in action and used them successfully to sell his Florida fashion line via
television. This loud and pushy style, together with its call for immediate action on the
part of viewers, caused DRTV advertising to become considered as synonymous with the
‘hard-sell’ advertising approach widely used in the early days of television’ (Wright,
Winter and Ziegler, 1982).

Due in part, however, to growing public criticism regarding the intrusive, high-
pressure and often deceptive tactics of TV advertising (in general, and especially in DRTV
commercials), the 1960's began what Fox (1984) termed a ‘creative revolution’ in
television advertising. More and more, commercials began to emphasize persuasion
through creativity, achieving this through focusing on the entertainment capacity of

television. This newer style, judged more preferable by consumers than hard sell

 

’The hard-sell approach was also the original copy style of early print advertising.

advertising, was termed the ‘soﬁ sell’ approach6 (Wright , Winter and Ziegler, 1982).
Because it often emphasized the image (or personality) of the advertised brand, television
commercials using this latter style came to be known generally as ‘brand’ or ‘image’
advertising.’ Thus, today the distinction between traditional DRTV short form
commercials and brand image commercials is generally made upon the basis of the
particular approach used (i.e., ‘hard’ or ‘soﬁ’ sell), as well as the call for immediate
viewer action, which is always featured in the former type of commercial format.8

An equally profound reaction to the problems associated with DRTV during this
period came by way of federal-level restrictions, which were tied to the renewal of licenses
for television stations airing these commercials. In compliance with FCC regulations
issued in 1960, which limited commercials to no more than 120 seconds in length, the
policies of many television stations regarding DRTV advertising started to change
between 1961 and 1963. The end result was that stations, though still desirous of the

income generated by direct marketers, began to closely monitor the reliability of direct

 

“This approach also originated in earlier print advertising, shortly after the turn of
the century. Early ﬁgures in advertising (e.g., Walter Dill Scott, author of The Psychology
of Advertising) referred to such print advertisements as ‘impressionistic’ or suggestive in
style (Fox, 1984).

7While David Ogilvy came to be know as the ‘father of the image school’ of
advertising, other creative approaches were also prominent at the time. William Bembach,
for example, instituted the idea of bringing together the artist and copy writer to create
advertising with powerful visual imagery, while communicating in a truthﬁrl, intimate and
sympathetic fashion (Wright, Winter and Ziegler, 1982).

I'Although not a focus of this paper, infomercials are another form of DRTV
advertising. While very similar to the short format, this format is characterized by product
demonstrations which are typically performed in front of a studio audience. They also
usually last between ﬁfteen and thirty minutes (thus, they are referred to as ‘long form’
DRTV).

marketer sponsors and the lengths of their DRTV commercials (Eicoff, 1988).

Despite these problems, however, use of the DRTV short format still proliferated.
In fact, one event that led to a major increase in the use of direct response advertising was
the banning of cigarette advertising on television in the 1970's. When networks and local
stations found themselves with loads of unsold air-time, direct marketers took advantage
of cheap broadcast rates (Witek, 1981). Ultimately, the television advertising copy style in
this period came to resemble that of the 1950's, as the ‘hard sell’ approach was more
appropriate for the tighter economic climate facing advertisers then (Fox, 1984).

Throughout its existence, smaller direct marketers have continued to rely upon
short-form DRTV advertisements. This reliance is due to the high audience reach and
frequency offered by television, and the low production and air-time costs associated with
it. These factors, along with the ability of direct response methods to generate results, are
why DRTV remains a prime advertising method for these individuals. Eicoff (1988 and
1995) cites a variety of small companies who have proﬁted handsomely for decades from
the use of direct response television advertising. One case cited is that of the Grant
Company of Chicago, which offered a hair-cutting comb called ‘Hair Wiz’. Up until 1985,
and after 23 years of selling via DRTV advertising, the company recorded sales of about
200,000 units per year. As many still do today, these commercials used the ‘boardwalk
pitchman’ approach to create interest and hold the attention of the viewer long enough to
make a sale.

Eicoﬁ‘ (1988), on the traditional direct response commercial formula, states:

“The presentation includes a holder, that is, a promise of something

sensational to come, ranging from ﬁee prizes to a never-before-seen
miracle. [Then] the presentation of the problem involved an ailment, a

10

difﬁcult chore, or a substandard product performance. Then came

a solution with a visual demonstration or verbal description of

how the seller’s product would solve the problem . . . Then came

the turn, that part of the presentation that asked the potential

customer to reach in his pocket for the money. The turn was

always reinforced by a guarantee of satisfaction that ended with

“or your money will be cheerfully reﬁrnded,” (p. 51).

Many direct marketing commercials continue to be based on this approach, using
the hard sell style and traditional tactics that were used in the early years of DRTV. And
DRTV also remains a viable method of advertising for a variety of direct marketing
manufacturers to this day, according to many DRTV practitioners (e. g., Douglas, 1997;
Andrews, 1999; Bliwas, 2000).

A testament to the effectiveness (and longevity) of the DRTV advertising method
is the fact that, within the past three decades, several books (see, for example Witek,
1981; Eicoﬂ’, 1988 and 1995), and a host of direct marketing and advertising industry
magazine articles have been devoted speciﬁcally to the topic of creating broadcast DRTV
advertisements. Nowak (1992), for example, cites a total of twelve articles written on the
subject between 1982 and 1990, in trade magazines such as Adweek, Advertising Age,
Direct Marketing, C_a_ble World. Television/Ragio Age, Adweek’s Marketing Week, and
Chain-Store Age. The topic is still addressed in many of the same (and other) vehicles
today.

Something else which has not changed about the DRTV short format, however, is
the fact that it continues to draw criticism from consumers, consumer advocacy groups,

and regulatory agencies a like (see, for example, Storholm and Friedman, 1989; Collins,

1995, 1996a and 1996b; and Korgoankar, et al., 1997) (and for many of the same abuses

ll

cited earlier). The age of television increased the already wide-spread public criticism of
the advertising industry, as a whole.” Citing results from Public Opinion polls over the
past several decades, Fox (1984) notes, for example, that: “In 1946, 41 percent of the
American people found halfor more of all advertising misleading, and 54 percent said it
played too much on the audience’s emotions; in 1950, 80 percent complained that it led
people to buy things they didn’t need or could not afford, and 81 percent called for stricter
government regulation; in 1952, 68 percent rejected testimonials as insincere,” (pg. 200).
Another occurrence which may have helped fuel these earlier criticisms was the
public’s realization that marketers used the ﬁndings of motivational research to help
develop their advertising. The book The Hidden Persuaders (Packard, 1958) has been
credited with helping to make the general public aware of both advertisers’ interest in
understanding what motivates people to buy, and of the subsequent use of motivational
tactics in consumer advertising. Indeed, several experts on the subject of DRTV
advertising acknowledge that many of the tactics used in these commercials were often the
target of consumers’ concerns (e. g., Witek, 1981; Eicoff, 1995; Brady and Vasquez,
1996). Considering that many DRTV commercials today still rely upon virtually the same
types of tactics that were used originally, it is not surprising that consumers are still critical

of this particular advertising format.

 

5”The advertising industry has been the subject of widespread criticism throughout
its existence in the United States. The general criticism has regarded the lack of
truthfulness in advertisements.

12

The Landscape of Television Advertising — Will Hybrids Change It?

While several ﬁgures have been reported over the past decade, there is no
agreement on how brand image television advertising compares proportionately (i.e., in
terms of amount of air-time) to DRTV short-form advertising. For example, a 1990
content analysis study of six TV networks concluded that direct response TV commercials
accounted for approximately 17 percent of television ads (Bush and Bush, 1990). A more
recent study cited in Direct Mgrketirg (1998) magazine reported the ﬁgure at 24 percent.
And Fletcher (1999) cites an unnamed study as reporting that some 20 percent of all TV
commercials use a direct response mechanism (and are therefore DRT V commercials).
However, this author disputes this ﬁgure, noting that, as no one knows how many new
commercials are made each year, it would be impossible to detemrine the exact proportion
of each type of commercial.

Whatever the true proportion, a recent innovation in the DRTV advertising
industry has caused several DRTV practitioners to make striking predictions about the
ﬁrture of television advertising. Namely, that a new type of DRTV commercial will
virtually replace brand image commercials in the near ﬁrture.lo This new format began to
emerge in the early 1990's. Using both higher production and creative quality, ‘hybrids’
(as they have recently come to be known) allow advertisers to blend the entertainment
value of television brand image advertising with the traditional action techniques of direct

response advertising. A general notion underlying the use of hybrids is that, since the

 

l"Bliwas (2000) predicts this will occur within the next ﬁve to ten years. In 1990,
Alter (1990) predicted that general and DRTV advertising would be indistinguishable
within 10 to 15 years.

13

purchase of a product is inﬂuenced by consumers’ liking of it as well as the entertainment
its advertising provides, the creativity of direct marketing advertising adds value to
advertised products (e. g., Wunderman, 1996; Korgoankar et al., 1997; Bliwas, 2000).

Nowak (1992) credits a variety of factors for bringing about this newer type of
DRTV commercial. This author notes that the increased consumer acceptance of direct
marketing; inﬂation in advertising costs; and demands for advertising accountability; along
with the entry of automobile manufacturers, large ﬁnancial service institutions, and major
corporations such as AT&T, American Express, and Time/Life, have all led to the
displacement of smaller ﬁrms (such as Urban products, the distributor of ‘Ginsu’ knives;
and Ronco, the distributor of the ‘Veg-A-Matic’ slicer) as the major direct response
advertisers.ll

Two more indirect reasons may also serve as a basis for the lofty predictions about
hybrid DRTV short-form advertising. They are the recent advances in television
technology, and the proliferation of cable television stations. Digital technology has
brought interactive television closer to being a reality than ever before. Its promise to
advertisers is that it will provide ways to target ads to speciﬁc audience members, allowing
them to respond immediately, via interactive television. In addition, cable’s narrower
audience focus is expected to allow more specialized niches for advertisers. As a result,

DRTV practitioners view DRTV commercials, and especially the hybrids, as a ‘natural’

 

l‘Although Nowak does not specify the meaning of the term ‘major’, it likely
regards the proportion of advertising dollars spent by larger corporations as compared to
that spent by smaller DRTV advertisers (as opposed to the amount of actual air-time).
This is due to the fact that larger advertisers’ commercials are normally run during prime-
tirne programming, which is considerably more expensive than other dayparts, where the
smaller DRTV advertisers tend to spend their advertising dollars.

14

for both of these new ways of using television. So far, however, it is questionable whether
advertisers will make these predictions a reality.

Hybrid DRTV ads also provide advertisers with more of the options offered by
other direct response methods, such as direct mail and direct response magazine
advertising. For example, the inclusion of a web site address as an additional response
mode provides a means of generating leads and inquiries (qualities generally associated
with print direct response methods). In addition, branded direct response, a speciﬁc type
of hybrid DRTV commercial, can be used to help build brand awareness, build store
trafﬁc, as well as sell the product directly (Andrews, 1999).

According to DRTV practitioners, the innovation of hybrid DRTV advertising has
resulted in short-form DRTV’s winning converts from among a variety of major
companies, including tech ﬁrms, consumer product makers, and ﬁnancial services ﬁrms.
And this diversity is expected to grow, as it is anticipated that more and more major
advertisers will begin to rely upon short-form DRTV advertising. Bliwas (2000) states,
for example, that: “This diversity is self-perpetuating, and it’s inevitable that advertisers
and their agencies will continue to test innovative approaches, thereby broadening the
discipline,” (p. 3). Bliwas predicts that, within the next ﬁve to ten years, TV will virtually
become a direct response medium.

DRTV experts concur, however, that traditional short form DRTV commercials
still dominate the industry currently (e. g., Bliwas, 2000; Andrews, 1999; Hatch, 1999;
Douglas, 1997). Yet, only one study, cited in an article in Direct Marketing (1998)
magazine, has reported the current proportion of traditional DRTV short-form versus

‘hybrid’ DRTV commercials, This study, 00nducted by the ‘Response Marketing Group’,

15

investigated the number of these commercials that contain web site addresses, a key
feature of hybrids. Its authors monitored seven networks for a month and analyzed nearly
5,000 commercials airing during 170 hours of evening, news, sports, and morning
programming. They found that 19 percent of television commercials contained a web site
address. However, this ﬁgure is in stark contrast to an estimate by Hatch (1999) which
suggests that some 75% of all DRTV short-form commercials now include web site
addresses.

And while traditional DRTV spots are expected to remain a strong category, the
lead-generating hybrids are expected to provide the growth of the industry (Andrews,
1999). In particular, it is expected that dotcoms, auto manufacturers, and generally
companies which are more interested in lead generation than in direct sales, will be the top
industries for grth in DRTV advertising spending over the next year (Broadcaging Ed
9&1; 2000).

One industry that appears to have embraced the hybrid DRTV short format
recently is the pharmaceuticals industry. Shortly after the August 1997 announcement of
new guidelines for radio and television advertising of prescription dnrgs by the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA), direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising began
hitting the airwaves. The new FDA guidelines allow manufacturers to include health
claims, provided that they include information on major side effects, and list a free phone
number or Internet site for consumers to obtain additional information.

There are, however, several indications that it may be some time before any DRTV
short format becomes ‘the ﬁrture of TV’. The recent major decline in interest in e-

comrnerce, for instance, suggests that the brieﬂy-popular ‘dotcom’ advertisers may not

16

have as positive an outlook as DRTV practitioners thought (Detroit News, 8/10/00).

Another impediment to any immediate change in the landscape of television
advertising may be short-form DRTV’s image problem (a likely result of the wide-spread
criticism of the format). While the efﬁciencies created for advertisers by this method are
appealing, the realization of DRTV practitioners’ predictions are dependent upon adoption
of the format by major advertisers. So far, however, many major advertisers, as well as
many traditional advertising agency practitioners, remain skeptical of the format in general
(Douglas, 1997; Bliwas, 2000).

There are several factors that may be taken as evidence of this skepticism. First,
although the DRTV category is expected to grow, industry analysts contend that network
television (where brand image advertising dominates) will remain the primary television
advertising vehicle through 2003 (Consoli, 1999). This suggests that major advertisers
will continue using brand advertising, and thus remain largely dependent upon network
television for at least the ﬁrst few years of this decade.

There is also a question as to whether DRTV short-form advertising is currently
seen by major advertisers at-large as a strong alternative to traditional brand image
commercials. Although a recent Direct Marketing Association report (2000 Econom
Impact: U.S. Direct Marketing Today, [April 6, 2000]) shows that DRTV’s overall (i.e.,
short and long ad formats) proportion of total television ad spending has increased
consecutively over the past several years (from 37 percent in 1998, to 38 percent in 1999;

and it was projected to rise to 39.6 percent in 2000),12 it should be noted that these annual

 

12Total television advertising expenditures (including network, cable, syndicated
and spot) for 1998, 1999, and 2000 (estimated) were $47.7 billion, $50.4 billion and $55.3

l7

percentage point increases appear to be driven largely by pharmaceutical companies’
increased television advertising spending. OnHealth (2000) magazine reports that in 1998,
this industry’s total television advertising spending comprised 4 percent of DRTV
advertising, at $664 million. In 1999, pharmaceuticals’ advertising spending rose to $1.1
billion, and accounted for 6 percent of total DRTV ad expenditures. Therefore, while
DRTV’s proportion of total television spending did actually increase,13 it does not appear
that this was due to the forrnat’s attracting the diversity of major advertisers (as Bliwas
had predicted), but to an increase in spending by this single industry. In fact, controlling
for the dollars spent by the pharmaceuticals ﬁrms, total DRTV advertising spending
actually decreased slightly (from 33 percent in 1998, and to 32 percent in 1999).

For 2000, the projection for pharmaceutical companies’ television advertising
spending was set at $2 billion. If this goal was actually reached,” it means that this
industry’s spending accounted for close to 10 percent of overall DRTV advertising for the
year 2000 expenditures (the total ﬁgure for which was projected at $21.9 billion).

Controlling again for pharmaceutical companies’ DRTV expenditures, this would indicate

 

billion, respectively. Based upon these totals, and DRTV’s proportions, non-DRTV
advertising accounted for a total of $30 billion (or 63 percent of total advertising
spending) in 1998, $31 billion (or 62 percent of total ad spending) in 1999, and an
expected $33.4 billion in 2000 (or 60 percent of total ad spending).

l3Total DRTV expenditures (including short- and long-form infomercials) for
1998, 1999, and 2000 (estimated) were $17.65 billion, $19.17 billion and $21.9 billion,
respectively. Response magazine (http://www.responsemagazine.com/t0pics/
mediabillings/ 1Q00mediabillings.html/) reports, however, infomercials accounted for $.84
billion in 1998, for $.86 billion in 1999, and $.95 billion in 2000. This equates to a 2
percent annual contribution by infomercials to DRTV’s total proportion of all television
advertising dollars for this three year period.

“Compilation of actual media spending totals is published by Advertising Age in
fall (2001).

18

that DRTV’s proportion of total television advertising expenditures for 2000 that were
attributable to other direct marketers actually fell to approximately 30 percent (i.e., two
percentage points below the 1999 ﬁgure). Therefore, based upon the current trends in
television advertising spending, it does not appear that the DRTV short format
commercial is currently viewed by major advertisers at-large as an alternative to brand
image television advertising. Furthermore, the skepticism on the part of many potential
DRTV advertisers (as noted by Douglas [1999] and Bliwas [2000]) may be due to their

uncertainty about what short form DRTV advertising has to offer them.

Consumer Responses to DRTV Advertisements and Advertiser Uncertainty

In addition to the criticisms facing DRTV advertising, two more general factors
which may be having an impact on advertiser uncertainty about the format are a lack of
understanding of how consumers respond to DRTV advertising, and that many
practitioners’ (and researchers’) hold divergent views about what should be the goals of
direct response television advertising.

Citing a paucity of published empirical research on consumer responses to DRTV
advertising, Nowak (1992) called for researchers to investigate how and why direct
response advertising techniques work. Speciﬁcally, he noted that, with few exceptions
(e.g., Ahkter, 1989; Shim and Drake, 1990), research has been relatively unconcerned
with how consumers process direct response advertising. Presently, while a host of
articles boasting the beneﬁts of DRTV appear in trade magazines, research examining the
cognitive processing of direct response advertising (and especially DRTV advertising)

remains largely unexplored.

l9

As for published studies which have explored the area of direct response
advertising processing in recent years, the focus has been on assessing consumers’
attitudes toward the methodological aspects used in the ﬁeld (e. g., Korgoankar et al.,
1997), and their determinants (e. g, Akaah, et al., 1995). Areas receiving some attention
include consumer perceptions of (e.g., Rogers, 1996) and satisfaction with mail and
telephone direct response methods (e.g., Morrow and Tankersly, 1994), as well as
consumers’ privacy concerns about direct response methods, in general (e. g., Nowak,
1995; Milne and Rohm, 2000). Yet, several aspects of consumer response in this area still
have yet to be addressed. One particular area which has yet to be examined regards their
speciﬁc beliefs and perceptions about the format itself.

Nowak’s (1992) own study on consumer response raises another point which
could add to the uncertainty issue. It has to do with the divergent goals inherent in
traditional direct response advertising methods (including DRTV) and brand image
advertising. The study examined the relationship between viewer characteristics (i.e.,
demographics, experience and their beliefs concerning the risks associated with direct
response shopping) and their subsequent responses to DRTV commercials. These
responses included arousal, pleasure, attitudes (both toward the ad and the advertiser),
and purchase intention. Based on his ﬁnding of non-signiﬁcant correlations in two of
these areas (i.e., demographics and risk-related beliefs), he concluded that these types of
viewer characteristics were not related to peoples’ affective responses to DRTV ads, such
as enjoyability and attention. This conclusion is consistent with the general notion
underlying the use of entertainment devices in DRTV commercials. That is, if beliefs nor

demographics have an impact on whether consumers like the ads, and liking the ads leads

20

to product purchase, then entertainment (e. g., via the use of creative techniques found in
brand image television) can work effectively in DRTV spots.

However, there are problems with several aspects of this conclusion. First, the
beliefs investigated by Nowak relate only to the ﬁve perceived risk areas that people
associate with in-home shopping (i.e., ﬁnancial risk, performance risk, social risk, time-
loss risk and source risk). Other types of beliefs that can inﬂuence the consumers’
reactions may exist which may not be associated with any perceived risk. Also, it would
be useful to learn what beliefs underlie any such perceptions.

Second, while evidence of the lead-generating capability of ‘entertaining’ DRTV
commercials is cited in many recent practitioner articles (e.g., Bliwas, 2000; McLaughlin,
1999; Andrews, 1999), so far, evidence of their ability to directly induce product purchase
appears to be limited to only a few product and service types (e.g., book, CD and video
marketers, and ﬁnancial product marketers).

Finally, while creative goals such as likability and enjoyability are features that lend
‘entertainment value’ to television commercials, they are in contrast to the generally
understood traditional goals of direct response advertising methods (i.e., to inform and
generate an immediate response). As Vanden Bergh and James (1990) note, while
product/store image advertising attempts to elicit consumer response at a slower rate than
direct response ads (since they do not call for immediate action), “the very nature of direct
response offers the hope of ﬁnding an advertising strategy which requires information as
part of its normal approach,” (pg. 24).

Also on the issue of the slower response rates generated by brand image

advertising, Fletcher (1999) notes that, while direct response advertisers want immediate

21

response, advertisers interested in creating awareness of their products and services (i.e.,
brand image advertisers) generally expect a delayed response. Thus, planting an idea in
viewers’ minds which will prompt them to take action the next time they visit the retailer
(which may not be for a few weeks, or even years) is a lot different than spurring them
into instant action.

Fletcher also points out that humorous advertising, a mainstay of image and
awareness advertising, doesn’t work well in DRTV ads either. As a result, a
communications goal such as ‘remembering’ is not easily attained with this format (since
people tend to better remember ads they like).

Eicoff (1988 and 1995) has long argued against the use of brand image advertising
techniques in direct response television advertisements. Noting that “effective [direct
response] television advertising often is interesting rather than entertaining,” Eicoff
suggests that the most efﬁcient way to sell using the television medium is to “get right
down to the business of selling,” and not try to entertain the viewer (pp. 50-51)."

In summary, in order for DRTV to truly replace brand image advertising (as has
been predicted), this would require the wide-scale adoption of the kinds of creative
techniques employed in the creation of brand image advertising (e.g., humor, slice-of-life,

etc.), while maintaining the important components of direct response methods (i.e., an

 

"On this issue, Eicoff (1988) notes that, “the entertainment aspect of advertising
did not become part of the creative aspect [of direct response advertising] until the advent
of broadcast. By the time broadcast became a reality, the creative personnel were so far
removed from the client’s overall marketing program and sales thrusts that they lost the
ability to evaluate their efforts. In effect, they lost the score keeping mechanism [i.e., to
return an immediate proﬁt]. . . [thus, the advertising creative community] made up their
own way to keep score: awards!” (Pg. 50).

22

immediate feedback mechanism, an action orientation and an emphasis on information).
Yet, both these types of advertising are, by their very nature, in conﬂict with one another.
This has led several DRTV experts to suggest that the notion that DRTV can truly replace
brand image advertising is not probable.

Furthermore, disagreement on the issue of entertainment in DRTV commercials,
along with the criticisms of direct response advertising methods (both in general and
speciﬁc to DRTV), and the dearth of knowledge about consumers’ speciﬁc reactions to
DRTV advertising, may represent several causes for uncertainty among advertisers who
are considering foraging into the area of DRTV. One way in which to help decrease their
uncertainty is by broadening the understanding of consumers’ speciﬁc beliefs associated

with DRTV short-form advertising.

The Influence of Consumers’ Beliefs about Advertising on DRTV Responses

As with any marketing-related topic, consumer beliefs (especially those which may
underlie any concerns about the DRTV industry) are important because they are thought
to inﬂuence consumers’ subsequent evaluations and their behavioral intentions toward
directly marketed goods (Peter and Olson, 1999). And Korgoankar et al., (1997) contend
that “an understanding of consumers’ direct marketing advertising beliefs is important if
direct marketers desire to succeed in enhancing patronage of their products/services,” (p.
2)."5 However, despite the long history of criticisms surrounding direct response

television advertising (e.g., its intrusiveness, deceptiveness and use of high pressure

 

l‘5'1’hey also note that marketers have not come to understand these beliefs very
well.

23

techniques [Fox, 1984]), consumer beliefs relating to these speciﬁc types of issues have
not received much research attention, except for as they relate to the formation of
attitudes toward direct marketing advertising methods, as a whole (e. g., Akaah et al.,
1995; Korgoankar et al., 1997).

Another reason that it is important to begin to understand these types of beliefs is
because of how consumers traditionally view other direct response advertising methods
which are intended to generate leads and inquiries (e. g., direct mail). Consumer concerns
in this area broadly relate to the issue of privacy (see, for example, Nowak, 1995; Phelps,
Gonzenbach, and Johnson, 1994) as well as to the intrusiveness of direct response
advertising, which is caused by the ever-increasing number of marketer solicitations
(Storholm and Friedman, 1989; Akaah et al., 1995).

Based largely on the multiattribute attitude model of Fishbein and Ajzen (1975),
the study of market-related beliefs has received considerable attention in the consumer
behavior literature. In this model, beliefs are deﬁned strictly in terms of the likelihood that
a speciﬁc brand (or other object) has a speciﬁc attribute. Thus, these types of studies have
generally viewed beliefs as a component of attitudes toward some particular marketing-
related object, such as direct marketing (Akaah et al., 1995), advertising (e. g., Kuehl and
Dyer, 1977; Rossiter and Percy, 1980; Muehling, 1987; Smith and Swinyard, 1988),
brands (e. g., Lutz, 1985) and product knowledge (e.g., Alba and Hutchinson, 1987).

Others note, however, that consumers’ beliefs may also reﬂect more generalized
associations. Duncan and Olshavsky (1982), for example, point out that, in the context of
consumer decision making behaviors, beliefs can be associated with classes of objects

(e.g., buyers, products, vendors), product attributes (e.g., price, quality) and with notions

24

about how the marketplace operates over time (e. g., competition, change, etc.) One way
in which consumers’ market beliefs become associated with such objects is through their
experiences with these objects (e. g., with brands that are purchased over time). These
associations also provide a way of quickly assessing newly encountered brands that have
traits similar to those of other brands the consumer is already familiar with (Alpert, 1993).

These latter notions regarding beliefs are based on the psychological literature,
which typically deﬁnes belief as “a proposition that conveys information about the
relationship between two independent concepts” (Kendler, 1968, p. 579). Accordingly,
Bem (1970, p. 4) states, “If a man perceives some relationship between two things or
between something and a characteristic of it, he is said to have a belie .” Further, English
and English (1958) deﬁne belief as “an emotional acceptance of a proposition or doctrine
upon what one implicitly considers adequate grounds. The grounds for belief, however,
are not examined, nor does the behavior imply that others need have the same grounds.
Beliefs have varying degrees of subjective attitude.” Thus, although beliefs are seen to
have both cognitive (meaning) and affective (emotion) components, the psychological
literature treats them more generally than multiattribute models.

With respect to the ﬁeld of advertising, Andrews (1989) notes that Bauer and
Greyser (1968) provided evidence that consumers’ overall attitudes toward advertising in
general are inﬂuenced by their existing beliefs toward advertising in general. In essence,
the beliefs that people were found to hold about general advertising (that it is annoying,
offensive, informative and enjoyable) are the reasons for their attitudes. Duncan (1990)
applies this broader view of beliefs to marketing activities, through the concept of general

market beliefs. These are deﬁned as consumers’ “intermediate level beliefs that convey

25

information about the association between independent (marketing) variables.”

Duncan (1982) acknowledges that, although research in the area of market-related
beliefs and subsequent behavior has not yet developed adequately to predict the precise
direction, or the extent of the inﬂuence of beliefs on consumer behavior, on the basis of
various cognitive consistency theories (e. g., Brown, 1965) it can be expected that
behavior is likely to at least be consistent with beliefs. Viewed in this light, examining
consumers’ prior beliefs can help explain how they make decisions about related market-
place concepts. Therefore, in the present study, the beliefs construct examined will be
consistent with the view held in the social psychology literature.

As noted previously, Nowak’s (1992) is one of only a few studies which has
addressed the area of consumers’ beliefs about direct response methods. Other topic areas
studied include consumers’ speciﬁc beliefs with respect to their knowledge of in-home
shopping methods and industry practices (e. g., McCorkle et al., 1987), and those
associated with shopping satisfaction (e. g., Ghert et al., 1988).

And while Nowak’s study directly addressed some of the beliefs consumers hold
about direct response television (i.e., beliefs about perceived risks), these areas do not
ﬁrlly reﬂect the broader criticisms leveled at the DRTV industry. There are, however,
other areas of advertising research which can shed light on beliefs about the DRTV short
commercial format. These areas are direct marketing advertising and television
advertising. The next section will present a review of literature on direct marketing issues
regarding consumer response. A review of literature on television advertising issues will
then be presented, followed by a review of issues regarding traditional DRTV short-form

advertising.

26

Consumers’ Beliefs about Direct Marketing Advertising

Storholm and Friedman (1989) investigated direct marketing practitioners’
assessments of consumers’ negative beliefs regarding the ﬁeld of direct marketing. This
work produced a listing of what practitioners feel are the biggest myths that consumers
have about direct marketing (presented below in Table 2.1). Their ﬁndings indicate that
consumers are believed (by practitioners) to hold a variety of negative perceptions about
several of the practices (or tactics) typically used in direct marketing, the types of products
offered by direct response television advertising, and the reasons underlying advertisers’
use of direct advertising methods. In particular, several major underlying themes were
identiﬁed. First, direct marketing practitioners noted that consumers perceive direct
marketers as both unscrupulous and willing to do anything that will ‘turn a buck’. “This
manifested in the myths (consumers have) which refer to the perceived dishonesty and
unprofessional practices of direct marketing professions,” (p. 977). A related notion is
that consumers perceive “that the ﬁeld is peopled with unprofessional professionals,”
indicating that consumers believe anyone can succeed at direct marketing.

Next, these practitioners noted that consumers hold direct marketing, and
especially direct mail, in low esteem. For instance, the term ‘junk mail’ indicates that
consumers see this particular format as not read, not effective, and they believe it only
works for very ‘simple’ items. Practitioners also noted that consumers believe that “a
ﬁrm can sell anything at anytime to anybody with direct marketing.” The authors note that
this theme reﬂects the notion that the public feels certain direct marketing methods always
work, and that advertisers can get rich quickly by using direct marketing.

The Storholm and Friedman study was also instrumental in bringing to light the

27

Table 2.1
Partial List of Direct Marketing Myths Held by Consumers

 

Direct Mail is all “junk” mail.

“Junk” mail is not read, especially, if the copy is long.

Most direct marketers are dishonest, unscrupulous, and unprofessional.

Anybody can be successful at direct marketing.

Direct mail works only for simple, not sophisticated, items.

Nearly anything can be sold through direct marketing.

Direct marketing has limited effectiveness, does not work, or is a very specialized ﬁeld.
The more money spent, the better the response.

Certain methods (e.g., coupons, free offers, teasers) always work.

10. You can get rich quickly in direct marketing.

11. You need very little money to get started in direct marketing.

12. Direct marketing can sell products lacking quality.

13. Direct marketing is not as successful as standard advertising.

14. Direct marketing (and telemarketing) is an invasion of privacy.

15. People don’t win anything in sweepstakes.

16. There exists a single “master list” with all kinds of information about those listed.

PQNP‘P‘PPN?’

 

Note: Adapted ﬁom “Perceived Common Myths and Unethical Practices Among Direct
Marketing Professionals,” by Gordon Storholm and Hershey Friedman, 1989, Journal 9f
Business Ethics, 8 (2), p. 977.

fact that practitioners were aware of consumers’ privacy concerns regarding the direct
marketing area. As mentioned earlier, several more recent studies indicate that this issue
remains a serious one. This is the case despite the efforts of the Direct Marketing
Association (DMA), which has instituted measures that allow consumers the option to
remove their names from mailing lists and marketer data bases; and of Federal legislation,
such as the Telecommunications Competition and DeregrﬁrtionAct of 1996 (Broadcasting
Ed Cable, 1996) which was aimed at curtailing privacy abuses by direct marketers. Citing
several polls taken throughout the 1990's, Wells, Burnett and Moriarty (1998) note that a
growing number of consumers feel that they have lost all control over how their personal
information is circulated and used by companies.

A 1995 study which examined consumers’ attitudes toward direct marketing

28

advertising echoed several of the perception issues identiﬁed by practitioners in the
Storholm and Friedman research. Akaah et al., (1995) found, in particular, that
consumers feel overloaded with direct mail solicitations; and that they associate
purchasing from home with higher risk. These authors note that this risk is “ﬁrrther
exacerbated by the perception that direct marketers sell shoddy and nonexistent products,”
(p. 212). One other important ﬁnding in this study was that these consumer perceptions
were said to signiﬁcantly inﬂuence consumers’ attitudes toward direct marketing, and
these attitudes, in turn, signiﬁcantly inﬂuence their intention to patronize direct marketing
offerings. So, while Nowak (1992) found that beliefs did not inﬂuence liking of DRTV
advertisements in particular, Akaah et al’s., ﬁnding indicates that cognitive variables (such
as beliefs and attitudes) regarding direct response methods do appear to inﬂuence

purchase intentions.

Consumer Evaluations and Beliefs About Television Advertising

While some DRTV researchers and practitioners contend that DRTV commercials’
use of creative elements used traditionally in brand image advertising’7 is a positive factor,
the consensus of consumer research on responses to television advertising over the past
several decades has concluded that consumers are highly critical of advertising in this
medium, as well. Empirical studies examining consumers’ attitudes toward television
advertising have investigated a variety of consumer perceptions which underlie these

attitudes. Since the landmark study by Bauer and Greyser (1968), the inventory of

 

17That is, due to their increased production and creative quality, or entertainment
value.

29

_ consumer perceptions about general advertising has broadened beyond these researchers’
initial focus on advertising’s social and economic effects. Later research has examined
consumers’ perceptions of the information value of advertising (e. g., Haller, 1974; Durand
and Lambert, 1985; Muehling, 1987), poor taste and sex in advertising (e.g., Larkin,
1977), ethics in advertising (Triff, Benningfreld, and Murphy, 1987), falsehood and
deception (Larkin, 1977; Muehling, 1987); materialism (Larkin, .1977, Duran and
Lambert, 1985), enjoyability of ads (e. g., Shavit, Lowery and Haefner, 1998),: and the
need for government regulation of advertising (Durand and Lambert, 1985).

Several studies have also helped to broaden the understanding of consumers’
perceptions of advertising on television. Resnik and Stern (1977), for example, developed
a list of information cues found in television advertising that are useﬁrl to the consumer.
More recently, Aaker and Stayman (1990) note that there have been a host of efforts
intended to generate measures that can be used to tap the perceptions of advertising held
by audience members. These authors cite a number of studies undertaken by individuals in
the advertising industry (e. g., Leo Burnett Group and the Bruzzone Research
Corporation, or the BRC) which they contend provide evidence that correlations exist
between individuals’ perceptual judgements of TV commercials and persuasion. Their
own study identiﬁed nine factors which help explain liking and effectiveness of television
ads. These were: amusing/clever, informative/effective, irritating/silly, dull, warm, lively,
familiar, believable, and conﬁrsing.

Two studies conducted by Alwitt and Prabhaker (1992 and 1994) also examined
consumers’ perceptual judgements of TV advertising. Their ﬁrst study identiﬁed six

dimensions which reﬂect such judgements, including: perceptions of personal and social

30

cost/beneﬁt, perceptions of how television commercials are executed, perceptions that
television advertising is deceptive, perceptions of offensive aspects of television
advertising, perceptions that television advertisements are shown too often or too much,
and perceptions that television does not offer information. In the latter study, Alwitt and
Prabhaker (1994) examined two demographic characteristics (age and income) in order to
examine their interactions with the reasons for holding certain attitudes toward television
advertising.

Mitall (1994) described consumers’ perceptions and beliefs regarding television as
spanning ten dimensions. Thus, taken as a whole, the overall ﬁndings produced by recent
research on both advertising, in general, and television advertising are consistent with
earlier studies. They indicate that consumers continue to hold negative perceptions about
the practice and institution of advertising, and the particular medium delivering it, in
addition to the social and economic effects of television advertising.

The ﬁndings of studies on consumers’ perceptions and beliefs about direct
marketing advertising, together with those regarding television advertising provide
guidelines for investigating the belief issues which may underlie DRTV short-form
advertising. In particular, they can help to ﬁrrther identify perceptions underlying
consumers’ beliefs about various issues relating to the DRTV format; the effects these
beliefs may potentially have upon their attitudes; and more importantly to this study, on

their behavioral intentions.

31

The Potential Impact of Consumers’ Beliefs on DRTV Advertising Responses

Given the documented consumer concerns associated with both direct response
advertising methods, as well as with television advertising, in general, the area of direct
response television advertising already represents the ‘worst’ of what both types have to
offer. This situation is ﬁrrther exacerbated by the fact that smaller direct marketers, for
whom the DRTV format holds great appeal, have been accused of being the main culprits
in dirtying the image of DRTV (see, for example, Witek, 1981). In particular, these
advertisers are drawn to the format by its lower production and air time rates, as well as
by newer features, such as the per inquiry system. This system allows advertisers to pay a
ﬁxed amount per lead, or a percentage of sales, instead of for the amount of air time
actually used (McLaughlin, 1998).

The kinds of charges levied against smaller direct marketers relate to several areas,
including: (1) the commonplace reliance of DRTV commercials upon a host of tactics
which are often considered misleading and/or deceptive, by both consumers as well as
regulatory agencies such as the Better Business Bureau (see Collins, 1995 and 1996); (2)
advertisers’ perceived motives for using certain tactics; and (3) the nature of many of the
products typically featured in these types of commercials. Therefore, the question of
whether consumers’ beliefs about the format itself actually reﬂect these concerns is an
important one which needs to be addressed.

The reliance of DRTV commercials’ upon a variety of tactics over the years began
as a result of early direct marketers’ realization that the format could be used to present
information-intensive advertising messages to large numbers of consumers (W itek, 1981).

This remains a factor in DRTV’s appeal to all types of direct marketers, including the ﬁrst

32

types who used it widely (i.e., smaller advertisers). The emphasis upon information, in
fact, is what gave rise to the use of a variety of executional elements often used in these
types of commercials. Early direct marketers realized that many of these elements were
capable of presenting highly convincing information to consumers both verbally and
visually. For instance, the realization that the carnival barker, who created interest and
excitement while telling customers about problem-solving products, was an effective
technique led to the use of rapidly speaking announcers, which is still greatly used today.

It has been intimated that agency creatives know intuitively that the way in which
executional elements of an advertisement are blended can help determine which of the
consumers’ mental processes become engaged, and which do not (Sutherland, 1993). And
while the effectiveness of such elements in commercials often depends on the recipient’s
lack of awareness of them and how or why they work (e. g., subliminal messages), Witek
suggests that many of these elements have become familiar to consumers. This author
contends that this situation has occurred as a result of consumers’ many years of exposure
to DRTV commercials, which have continued to rely upon the same variety of tactics
(e. g., celebrity endorsers, testimonials, product demonstrations, rapid-speech and ﬁ'ee
offers, among others).

Witek also acknowledges that many of these well-known tactics have become
negatively associated with the format. He states, “as promising as DRTV is, it has always
been regarded with so much suspicion that millions of people who might become
customers steer clear,” (p. 7). Therefore, it is highly probable that the criticisms
consumers have directed toward traditional short-form DRTV advertising may relate to

the fact that they perceive (and are conscious of) many of the executional elements

33

encountered in these commercials.

Evidence that consumers do consciously consider some of these types of elements
has been found in several studies. First, a variety of studies have found that consumers
evaluate the use of various types of endorsements used in television and other types of
advertising. Solomon (1994) notes, for example, that studies indicate that consumers
sometimes question celebrities’ competence to critically evaluate a product’s claims. And
O’Mahoney and Meenaghan’s (1997) recent investigation of consumers’ attitudes toward
celebrity endorsements found that consumers hold certain perceptions about their ability to
gain viewers’ attention. Further, these authors concluded that celebrities were not
perceived as overly convincing or believable, and that consumers may not trust their
motives for endorsing a product.

These ﬁndings also relate to those of an earlier study which compared the effects
of endorsements,“ in general, and other executional elements (or risk-relievers) in their
ability to reduce the perceived risk associated with product purchase. Roselius (1979)
deﬁnes risk-relievers as devices or actions initiated by the buyer or seller, which are used
to execute some risk resolution strategy.19 He notes that advertisers include certain
executional elements in their messages for the purpose of relieving risk-related hesitancy

to buy by serving as catalysts to facilitate purchase.20

 

"Including testimonials, experts and celebrities.

1”The two speciﬁc strategies investigated were: to decrease the probability that the
purchase will fail, or to shift from one type of perceived loss to one for which there is
more tolerance.

20Other executional elements included for this purpose that were investigated in
this study were: brand loyalty, major brand image, private testing, store image, free
sample, government testing, shopping, expensive model and word-of-mouth.

34

Roselius found that consumers ranked the endorser tactic, along with the offering
of money-back guarantees, lowest in terms of their ability to alleviate their sense of risk
associated with purchases. A general implication of these ﬁndings is that, in the
consumers’ mind, some executional strategies may not serve the speciﬁc purposes that
advertisers intend them to. In other words, consumers may not perceive an
advertisement’s executional elements in the way the advertiser thinks they will.

Another implication of these ﬁndings is that, when consumers do evaluate tactics
they encounter, this represents that they hold knowledge (or beliefs) about the intentions
which underlie an advertiser’s use of certain tactics in advertisements. This notion was
presented by Friestad and Wright (1994). It was also investigated by Boush, Friestad and
Rose (1994), in a study which found that even adolescent respondents hold beliefs about
the effects that television advertisers try to elicit when they employ certain tactics.

The speciﬁc advertiser tactics Boush et a1. asked about in this study had been
developed in an earlier, unpublished study of adult consumers.21 This earlier study had
found that consumers do tend to associate certain tactics with particular effects which the
advertiser intends to achieve. However, the authors noted that there was no intuitive or
theoretical justiﬁcation for adults to believe that some tactics were signiﬁcantly more likely
to be associated with a particular intended effect. Although they do not explain this
comment (or investigate it directly), it may be the case that consumers could associate

more than one tactic with a speciﬁc advertiser intent, or that they could associate one

 

21The authors detailed the basic methodology and ﬁndings of the earlier study in
footnotes. The tactics investigated included product demonstrations, product
comparisons, humor, use of someone just like me (i.e., testimonials), as well as the use of
celebrities in advertisements.

35

tactic with more than one intended effect.

Other research has assessed a variety of executional elements used in both general
and television advertising. However, these studies usually tend to focus on some measure
of effectiveness, instead of on consumers’ perceptions of executional elements. For
example, the effectiveness of certain executional styles has been measured in terms of
evaluations of the persuasiveness, comprehension and intrusiveness of commercials (see,
for example, Shimp, 1974; Stewart and Furse, 1986; Laskey, et al., 1994; and Stanton and
Burke, 1998).

Consumers’ perceptions of tactics have also not been a focus of studies speciﬁc to
their use in DRTV commercials, either. For instance, while Bush and Bush (1990)
investigated the creative appeals (or creative executions) used in DRTV advertisements
using a content analysis approach, no studies were found which examined such elements
from the consumer perspective. Their study found that direct marketers tended to stay
away ﬁ'om traditional creative appeals found in general television advertising (e.g., sex,
humor and fear). Instead, almost 77 percent of DRTV commercials used a straight factual
appeal.

Several of the studies mentioned earlier, however, (e.g., Stanton and Burke, 1998;
Boush et al., 1994; and Roselius, 1979; etc.) do have implications for studying how
consumers perceive executional elements commonly used in DRTV commercials. With
respect to endorsements, for example, the Stanton and Burke study (which looked at the
persuasion effectiveness of ﬁfteen second versus thirty second commercials) found that
persuasion in both commercial lengths is negatively associated with the use of actors

playing ordinary people. This ﬁnding is relevant to DRTV, since endorsers are often actors

36

who portray actual product users. The ﬁnding suggests that, when potentially non-
believable actors are used, they may be perceived by viewers as ‘clutter’. And this is
especially relevant for information-intensive commercials (such as DRTV commercials),
since use of the tactic may amount to a distraction for viewers, causing them to tune out
or not pay attention to the information presented in the advertisement.

The ﬁndings of these studies also serve to illustrate one other very important point.
That is that, even though advertisers have speciﬁc intentions for the elements they include
in their advertising messages, they cannot really be certain of how consumers will perceive
them. This uncertainty is highlighted when we consider the term ‘tactic’. To advertisers,
for example, this term is used to describe either an executional element”, or the general
nature of the creative executions used in commercials (see, for example, Laskey et al.,
1994). Friestad and Wright (1994) note that consumers, on the other hand, may use the
term in order to describe advertising elements which connote the advertiser’s intentions.
Therefore, consumers’ perceptions of the advertising executions included in
advertisements are likely to differ considerably ﬁom advertisers’.

In light of the importance of understanding the consumer perspective, Friestad and
Wright use the term advertising ‘feature’ (or feature pattern) to describe the types of
executional elements addressed in the studies noted above. They describe features
generally as the elements that people come to perceive as representing an advertiser’s
tactics. Tactics, in this sense, refer to the strategies the advertiser uses in order to elicit a

particular response in the viewer. For example, when an advertiser attempts to invoke

 

22This is the typical usage described in advertising texts. See, for example, Wells,
Burnett and Moriarty (1998), or Arens and Bovee (1996).

37

fear in the viewer, they use ‘a scare tactic’; or, to get their attention, they may use an
‘attention-getting’ tactic.

Although DRTV commercials do utilize many of the same types of executional
elements as general commercials,23 according to Witek (1981), their historical reliance
upon certain ones may cause consumers to associate these elements almost exclusively
with DRTV advertising. The list of such tactics includes free offers, money-back
guarantees, testimonials and endorsements, and response mechanisms (e.g., toll-free
telephone numbers). However, distinctions between the types of executional elements
used in DRTV versus brand image television advertising were rarely made in either the
published empirical literature, or textbooks on advertising (see, for example, Wells, et al.,
1998; Arens and Bovee, 1996).

Therefore, a need exists for research which investigates tactics that consumers
commonly associate with DRTV advertising. And, based upon the fact that they may also
associate these tactics with other beliefs they hold about advertising — negative ones, in
particular — the focus of such research should include the examination of these types of
beliefs. One body of research which provides direction for examining this latter area is

deceptiveness research.

Research on Consumer Perceptions of Deceptiveness in Advertising
Research on the topic of deceptive and misleading advertising was of considerable

interest in the 70's and 80's. During this period, researchers were attempting to broaden

 

23Hybrid DRTV advertisements, for example, use many of the same elements as
branded commercials.

38

regulatory agencies’ (e. g., the Federal Trade Commission’s) understanding of how
advertising deception affects consumers’ brand-related beliefs (Cohen, 1972). The general
approach of marketing and communications research of this period was to identify
communications that may deceive consumers so that ef’fective measures could be taken
(through regulation or consumer education) to minimize the effect of deception on the
recipient. Key measurement variables included consumers’ normative (e. g., Dyer and
Kuehl) or salient brand beliefs and attitudes held after an advertising exposure
(Armstrong, Kendall and Russ, 1975; Harris, 1977; Harris, et al., 1981 Barbour and
Gardner, 1982), and their purchase intentions (Gardner, 1975; Olson and Dover, 1978;
Armstrong, Gurol and Russ, 1979; and Russo, Metcalf and Stephens, 1981). The
normative-beliefs technique assessed consumers’ post-exposure brand beliefs and attitudes
as compared to beliefs about the product category, while the salient-beliefs approach
focused on consumer perceptions of false claims (either asserted or implied) in an ad
(Armstrong, Gurol and Russ, 1979).

With few exceptions (e. g., Haefner, 1972; and Haefner and Perrnut, 1974)", the
general goals of advertising deception research in the marketing and communications areas
were to understand the extent to which consumers may be deceived, and to identify the
variables that determine the occurrence of deception. However, no acceptable deﬁnition
of deceptive advertising was ever established (Armstrong, Gurol and Russ, 1980;
Richards, 1990).

In contrast to the marketing and communications approach, the social psychology

 

2"These researchers examined consumers’ ability to detect deception in
advertisements.

39

literature has taken quite a different approach to the study of advertising deception. Here,
deception is generally deﬁned as a communicator’s deliberate attempt to foster in others a
belief or understanding which the communicator considers to be untrue. The criterion for
research in this area has been to look at the intent of the communicator, classifying an act
as deceptive if the person tries to give a false impression (DePaulo, et. al., 1989).
Zuckerman and Driver (1985) offer this deﬁnition: “Deception is an act that is intended to
convince another person to believe in something that the deceiver considers false” (p.
131).

There is both theoretical and empirical support for the notion that consumers
perceive some advertising tactics as deceptive, and that they may hold beliefs about the
deceptive intentions underlying their use by advertisers. DePaulo (1988) offers theoretical
support, hypothesizing that consumers may be ‘tipped off about an advertisers’ intention
to deceive by certain cues (or tactics) in their ads. These lie-perception cues (also termed
lie-detection cues) are correlated with an audience’s impressions of deceptiveness (i.e.,
beliefs about what constitutes deceptiveness). Furthermore, people are thought to rely
upon these cues to help them detect deceptiveness in ads.

Drawing upon the ﬁndings of several studies, DePaulo identiﬁed a variety of
tactics that could be termed lie-perception cues, and which consumers may use to evaluate
advertisements they encounter for deceptiveness. An example of one such cue is extreme

favorableness in advertisements.” DePaulo suggests that this extreme favorableness cue

 

25This cue was derived from a study by Beltramini and Evans (1985), which found
that consumers perceived more extreme claims about consumer preference for an
advertised brand as less believable than less extreme claims.

40

might be triggered when an ad recipient encounters an ad claim that seems ‘too good to be
true’.

This issue has also been examined in light of attribution theory. Conducted mostly
in the social psychology area, attribution studies generally look at differences in how
individuals attribute the causes of events. In a classic attribution study by Settle and
Golden (1974), they found that consumers judged ads as more credible when these ads
disclaimed the superiority of some of the product’s attributes (as opposed to claiming that
all the attributes were superior in the ad). Although they did not explain their ﬁndings in
DePaulo’s terms, the Settle and Golden experiment is consistent with the idea that certain
cues may indeed be triggered when claims seem too favorable.

The ﬁndings of O’Mahoney and Meenaghan’s (1997) study (cited earlier) also
point up another issue which is related to consumers’ perceptions of endorsements in
advertising. Namely, that consumers think about ‘why’ certain types of tactics are used in
advertisements (e.g., to get their attention, or because the featured individual is trusted).
Thus, the ﬁndings of studies on these (and other) executional elements are directly related
to the DRTV advertising format, since these commercials often rely upon the use of many
of the same elements.

Cohen (1972) also notes that, because consumers evaluate products through both
subjective and objective advertising material, surrogate indicators such as colors, symbols,
or even endorsements, are capable of conveying deception to consumers. And, while
many of these types of executional elements are certainly not exclusive to DRTV

advertising, some may be more commonly associated with DRTV commercials. This may

especially be the case for traditional hard sell tactics which have been used in these types

41

of ads since the early days of television.

An additional tactic that experts note is often associated with DRTV advertising is
the use of disclaimers (see Witek, 1981). On this tactic, Muehling (1997) concludes that
consumers may see ﬁne print (or disclaimers) as an indicator of advertisers’ deceptive
intent. “Consumers may come to believe that advertisers use ﬁne print as a means of
protecting their own self-interests . . . present(ing) information they do not want to tell the
audience in nearly illegible print” (p. 1). Because this element may substantially alter
claims that were made in the audio portion of an ad, some viewers (upon encountering this
element in ads) may see it as an indication of the advertiser’s intention to deceive. Thus, it
may act as a signal to consumers that advertisers who use small print may be attempting to
convey a false or deceptive impression to audience members.

On the basis of these studies (and DePaulo’s work), support is provided for DRTV
experts’ (e.g., Witek, 1981; Brady and Vasquez, 1996; Eicoff, 1995) general contention
that consumers do realize that certain tactics are included in advertisements in an effort to
inﬂuence them in a particular way. The notion that they also seem to give consideration to
‘why’ these tactics are used is also supported. If consumers do have these realizations,
and make such considerations, then they may indeed interpret many DRTV tactics as
stemming ﬁ'om advertisers’ intention to deceive or mislead the consumer through their

commercial messages.

Consumer Perceptions of Deceptiveness in Advertisers’ Motives
In response to marketers’ interest in understanding the deeper meanings of

products and advertising to consumers, researchers began investigating the motivations

42

which underlie various consumer behaviors in the 1950's. Since this period, the topic of
motivational research has received a great deal of attention in consumer behavior-related
ﬁelds, such as psychology and sociology."5 This research has yielded a number of
theoretical approaches which have helped broaden marketers’ understanding of
consumption behavior. Many of these ﬁndings have been used to develop effective
advertising campaigns. For example, Solomon (1994) notes that, after motivational
research pioneer Ernest Dichter found that people responded well to animal symbolism in
ads, Esso (now Exxon) reminded consumers for many years to “Put a Tiger in Your
Tank”.

In addition to the use of motivational research in advertising, Hanna and Wozniak
(2001) note that a variety of product categories have also capitalized on these ﬁndings.
One example of how this research has led to the development of a new product is the
time-saving technology known as ‘Speedpass’, which allows consumers to ﬁll their tanks
without having to pay at the pump or go inside of the station. This product developed out
of research that found that consumers have a need to save time and effort. Hanna and
Wozniak also note that both the recent growth in the gambling industry, and in 900-
number services also reﬂect research ﬁndings regarding human desires, which are an
element inherent in motivation.

Conversely, considerably less attention has been focused on research which seeks

to learn what perceptions consumers hold for the motives marketers have for engaging in

 

2"Solomon (1994) deﬁnes motivational research as “a qualitative research
approach, based on psychoanalytic (Freudian) interpretations, with a heavy emphasis on
unconscious motives for consumption,” (p. 622).

43

persuasive activities. However, research in several marketing-related areas does provide
useful insight into how consumers perceive the motives which underlie advertisers’
behaviors. These areas include attribution research, research on the deceptiveness of
advertising directed toward children, and corporate image research.

Attributions studies which have examined consumers’ attributions for a variety of
marketplace outcomes perceived as caused by marketers, are useﬁrl in exploring consumer
beliefs about advertisers’ motives. Studies in this area have examined consumers’
attributions associated with inequitable exchange (e. g., Hunt et al., 1983), product failure
(e. g., Folkes, 1984), and beliefs regarding businesses’ practices and consumerism (e. g.,
Barksdale and Darden, 1972; Hustad and Pessimier, 1973). Practitioners’ ethical beliefs
have also been examined (e. g., Storholm and Friedman 1989; Chonko and Hunt 1985).
Additionally, studies have identiﬁed some of the speciﬁc traits that may reﬂect advertiser
motives. These traits include advertiser credibility, (e.g., Settle and Golden 1974),
trustworthiness, prestige, competence and competitive(ness) (e. g., Vanden Bergh et al.,
1981)

Research on children’s television advertising is another area which has implications
for studying how motives are perceived by consumers. Advertisements targeting this
special audience became a major focus of study in the early 1970's. Two important issues
in this area were children’s understanding of the intent and content of television
commercials. These two constructs were generally examined for their relationship with
the age demographic (as well as others).

The general ﬁndings in this area were that distrust in commercials was positively

correlated with age (Blatt, Spencer and Ward, 1972; Ward and Robertson, 1972; Rossiter

44

and Robertson, 1974); and distrust of speciﬁc commercials was found to begin by the time
children reached second grade (Blatt et al., 1972). Also, Ward (1972) found that, by the
time children reach the 6'” grade, they reached what he characterized as ‘global distrust’ of
advertising. Even more important was Ward’s ﬁnding that, for older children, the basis of
this distrust was the perceived intent of the commercials.

More recently, Boush et al’s., (1994) study of adolescent skepticism toward
advertising confirms Ward’s ﬁnding. Speciﬁcally, the study sought to examine how older
children (grades 6 through 8) who are moving through adolescence, think and feel about
both about the tactics that advertisers use to persuade them, as well as their overall
attitude toward advertisers’ motives (i.e., what advertisers are trying to accomplish when
they use particular tactics). According to these researchers, such cognitions reﬂect
children’s perceived intentions of the persuasive agent (in this case, advertisers).

These researchers identiﬁed two dimensions of advertiser skepticism: mistrust of
advertisers’ motives and disbelief of advertising claims.27 Moreover, they found that
adolescents have high levels of both mistrust for advertisers’ motives and disbelief of
advertising claims. Therefore, it appears that younger consumers (as well as older ones)
also hold certain negative perceptions about the motives underlying advertisers’ use of
tactics in TV ads.

Another research focus which has implications for how consumers view

 

27Because of the focus of the Boush et al., study (i.e., adolescents), the survey
items used to measure skepticism were designed to assess: 1) the degree to which
subjects could differentiate between their own interests and those of the advertiser, and 2)
the degree to which they discriminated between truthful and untruthful advertising, rather
than categorizing all advertising as the same.

45

advertisers’ motives is corporate image research. This area can provide insight into
consumers’ cognitions about ﬁrms, in general.

Corporate associations is a concept which refers to various types of knowledge
(e. g., perceptions, inferences, and beliefs) that people have about companies (Dacin and
Brown 1997). In particular, one study that explored the possible antecedents of attitude
toward companies found that consumers’ impressions of the ads used in a campaign affect
their general perception of the company which produced the advertised product
(Kilboume and Mowen 1986). This ﬁnding implies that consumers do rely upon their
evaluations of persuasive messages in an effort to make inferences about the producer of
an ad.

On the basis of research in these areas, it can be concluded that individuals do hold
perceptions about the motives that underlie many of the speciﬁc tactics that advertisers
employ in their television advertising. Yet, these studies do not go very far toward
explaining how they come to their overall beliefs about motives. One way in which to
develop this understanding is to look more closely at the concept of motives itself.

Rotzoll, et al., (1996) provide a theoretical perspective for looking at how people
come to infer advertisers’ motives.” First, these authors posit that an individual’s
perception of advertising stems partly from their overall view of how the advertising
institution functions in society. Essentially, motives can be seen as emanating either out of
one’s self interest, or out of altruism. Then, individuals relate the reasons why advertisers

rely upon the particular advertising mechanisms that they do (and why they engage in

 

2"Solomon (1994) notes that motives must be inferred because of the difﬁcultly in
studying them directly.

46

speciﬁc marketing activities) to their particular viewpoint. Thus, consumers who see
advertising as driven by self interest tend to believe advertisers’ practices are designed to
take advantage of consumers. On the other hand, those who see advertising as driven by
altruism believe advertising practices are intended to facilitate the needs of rational-minded
consumers.

Other scholars note that, when marketers’ behaviors are viewed as motivated by
self-interest, they tend to reﬂect the notion of unfairness in the areas of proﬁts and/or
ﬁnancial issues, competition, as well as the promotional methods which advertisers rely
upon (Pollay and Gallagher, 1984). And these kinds of actions are often perceived by
many individuals as deceptive and/or misleading.29 It is for this reason that advertisers’
self-interested motives have been at the crux of many critics’ concerns regarding
advertising’s pervasive social and unintended effects for several decades (see, for example,

Gossage, 1986).

Consumer Perceptions, Beliefs and Attitudes About the Nature of DRTV Products
In addition to their perceptions about DRTV tactics and advertisers’ motives,
another aspect of DRTV advertisements for which many consumers express concern has
to do with the types of products that are typically offered in these ads. Research has
identiﬁed several areas of concern. First, Storholm and Friedman’s (1989) ﬁnding that

practitioners perceive that many consumers feel most directly-marketed products fulﬁll no

 

29An example of how perceptions of direct marketing advertising can reﬂect a
proﬁt motive comes from the Storholm and Friedman study ﬁndings that consumers think
that direct marketing advertising is used to get rich quickly, and that these practitioners
will do anything to turn a buck.

47

real need is an issue that has been examined in other studies. Several studies which focus
on in-home shoppers versus retail shoppers have examined the issue of how directly-
marketed products are perceived.

In-home shoppers were found to perceive that DRTV advertising exposes them to
more brands than people who shop only at stores (Rosenberg and Hirschman, 1980), and
that it offers new and different products (Darian, 1987), while store shoppers tend to view
it as not offering any such product-related advantages.

Donthu and Gilliland (1997) suggest that this issue (i.e., DRTV products’ need
ﬁrlﬁllment) is related to impulsiveness, since it reﬂects the fact that DRTV products are
often purchased with little or no search for alternatives. They found that in-home
shoppers were signiﬁcantly more impulsive and innovative than store shoppers.

Another problem area regards the lack of opportunity to examine products before
purchase. Weigold et al., (1992) note that a direct response purchase is typically seen by
consumers as a risky venture, since the consumer must rely almost exclusively on
advertising information (as opposed to ﬁrst-hand experience provided by the retail
experience). And Akaah et al., (1995) concluded that some consumers have a strong need
to examine products before purchase. For these consumers, this need is related to the
perception that direct marketers sell shoddy and nonexistent products.”

Donthu and Gilliland (1997) contend that DRTV advertising is faced with one
other, more general problem that branded advertising does not face. That is, while DRTV

advertising focuses upon the product itself (which is often unfamiliar to consumers),

 

30These ﬁndings are consistent with the perceptions about consumers’ criticisms of
DRTV advertising held by practitioners in the Storholm and Friedman study.

48

branded advertising (i.e., for retail goods) can often rely upon the reputation of either the
brand or the advertiser. Therefore, whereas brand names may help reduce any risk that
consumers may associate with a purchase, unfamiliar products (such as those offered
through DRTV advertising) do not enjoy this perceived advantage.

Several studies which have examined consumers’ perceptions of general brand
attributes offer support for the contention that individuals evaluate brands and other
market-related issues to learn their causes (i.e., by making associations between the brand
and some related concept). For instance, Zeitharnl (1988) examined consumer perceptions
of general brand attributes and found that individuals appear to hold perceptions about
brands’ quality, value and price. These perceptions develop as a result of experience and
marketer promotional efforts. Kirrnani and Wright (1989) found that ﬁrms’ perceived
advertising expenditures inﬂuence consumers’ brand perceptions, as well.

Another consideration that consumers may make regarding the nature of DRTV
products regards their view of how rational DRTV buyers are. Although no studies were
found which examined how DRTV shoppers are perceived by other shoppers (e.g., store-
only shoppers), this notion can be seen as an extension of Rotzoll et al’s., (1996) view of
how one attributes the advertising industry’s practices and ﬁrnctions in society (i.e., that
advertisers are either self-interested or altruistic). Thus, some individuals may see the
DRTV advertising format itself as a self-interested attempt to ‘palm of useless, inferior
and/or unsafe goods to consumers who are incapable of making rational buying decisions.
Others, however, may view it more positively. For example, some consumers may see
DRTV short form advertising as a means of providing them with information about new

products that are not available in retail stores.

49

In summary, a variety of consumer perceptions and attitudes toward DRTV
advertising have been addressed in several studies in the marketing and social psychology
literature. A major goal of several of these studies has been to determine whether a
relationship exists between these areas and consumers’ subsequent behavioral intentions
toward DRTV purchasing (Nowak, 1992), as well as toward purchasing through other
direct marketing methods (e.g., Akaah et al., 1995; Korgoankar et al., 1997). Two other
aspects of consumer response which have also been investigated are purchase likelihood
(Whitlark et al., 1993 ), and willingness-to-buy (e.g., Garland and Rhea, 1988). Both of
these variables have been shown to be inﬂuenced by consumers’ perceptions and attitudes
toward marketplace variables.

Furthermore, based on the social psychology literature on individuals’ beliefs, and
especially the idea that they may be associated with any marketing-related object, the
present study presents a multi-dimensional construct which is intended to help examine
consumers’ beliefs regarding short-form direct response television advertising. This
construct will be investigated within the framework of the persuasion knowledge model
(Friestad and Wright, 1994). Prior to presenting this model, however, a general overview

of the cognitive processing model will be presented.

Consumers’ Cognitive Processing of Advertisements
Cognitive processing theory provides a useful framework for investigating
consumer beliefs about the DRTV advertising format. This theory presents an
explanation of how individuals develop and use knowledge to aid them in understanding

and interpreting their environment. Generally-speaking, they accomplish this by forming

50

meanings (formally called cognitive representations) about various stimuli which they
encounter in their environment. This knowledge helps them carry out a variety of
cognitive tasks, such as identifying goals and objectives, and developing and evaluating
alternative courses of action to meet these goals (Peter and Olson, 1999).

With respect to the marketplace environment, consumers rely upon their existing
knowledge to help them interpret and form meanings about a variety of market-related
events and objects. Advertising and promotions are two marketing activities about which
consumers typically form meanings; and they attempt to interpret them when they
encounter them, or when thoughts about them are stimulated by some related event.

Friestad and Wright (1994) contend that one cognitive task for which consumers
use their market-related knowledge is to help them evaluate and cope with persuasive
attempts, such as advertisements. These authors present a model which conceptualizes
how peoples’ persuasion knowledge inﬂuences their responses to everyday persuasion
attempts.

The persuasion knowledge model, or PKM (depicted in Figure 2.1), presents the
phenomenon of persuasion from the consumers’ (or target’s) point of view, as well as
ﬁ'om the advertiser’s (or agent’s) point of view. Its basic premise is that both the target
and the agent rely upon their existing knowledge about how persuasion occurs in
individuals. Agents (i.e., the ﬁrm responsible for constructing the persuasion attempt) rely
upon this knowledge in order to guide the design and delivery of such attempts. In turn,

targets (i.e., the individuals for whom the persuasion attempt is intended) rely upon this

51

Figure 2.1
The Persuasion Knowledge Model

 

TARGET

Persuasion

Topic Knowledge Agent

Knowledge =3 Knowledge
I} - :1 .M.

 

Persuasion Attempt

 

 

 

-. Persuasion '

Topic . J ‘ ’Target
Knowledge ' KMW'WW ".‘

 

 

Reprinted with Permission: From “The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope
with Persuasion Attempts,” by Marian Friestad and Peter Wright, 1994, Journal of
Consumﬁ Regarch, 21 (June), p. 2.

52

knowledge to direct their coping responses.31

According to the model, the consumer’s existing knowledge about persuasion
attempts is contained in three knowledge structures which interact to shape and determine
their responses to a particular persuasion event. As shown in ﬁgure 2.1, these are topic
knowledge, agent knowledge and persuasion knowledge. The topic knowledge base
consists of beliefs about the particular topic featured in an advertising message (e. g., the
brand or product); and the agent knowledge base consists of beliefs about the traits,
competencies and goals of the communicator (e.g., the speciﬁc advertiser).

The persuasion knowledge base is the broadest and most complex of the three
knowledge structures, since it contains all of a person’s existing beliefs regarding how
persuasion occurs, in general.32 These beliefs reﬂect several aspects of how a persuasion
attempt actually persuades. With respect to an advertisement, for example, a person’s
persuasion knowledge base may hold beliefs about the psychological states and processes33
that must be tapped (or cued by a particular tactic) in order to bring about the effect the
agent desires; beliefs about the effectiveness and appropriateness of tactics used in ads;
beliefs about the marketer’s overall persuasion goals, as well as beliefs about his/her own
coping behaviors and goals.

The persuasion knowledge base works by guiding the observer’s attention to any

 

3‘ Because the focus of this study is on the consumer, however, the discussion of
the model will be limited to the target’s response to a persuasion attempt, such as an
advertisement.

3’2 This is referred to as an individual’s ‘naive psychology’ (ﬁom Heider, 195 8)
about how a particular event actually works to bring about persuasion.

33Friestad and Wright call these psychological mediators.

53

aspect of the message that becomes of interest; it then guides his/her subsequent reactions
to the persuasion attempt (e.g., the elicitation of related beliefs, coping responses, etc.).
For example, in interpreting an advertisement, a person’s beliefs about a particular
technique (or tactic) shown in the ad would be activated automatically upon exposure to
it. This belief may then spread to other beliefs, perhaps ones regarding a speciﬁc mental
state that is typically brought about in viewers when they associate this advertising
technique with the speciﬁc meanings already held.“

One possible mental state might be credibility (or, the state of perceiving someone
as credible), which may be brought about through the use of a testimonial in a commercial.
However, the observer may believe that credibility is only achieved when the individual
featured in the ad is perceived as believable to viewers.

Observing this feature may also trigger other related beliefs which may aid the
observer in ﬁrrther assessing the persuasion attempt. For instance, he/she may wonder
why the advertiser chose to use this particular feature in their advertisement, or wonder
about the appropriateness of using this feature for either the particular product advertised
in the commercial, or for the particular audience they appear to be targeting with the ad.

Furthermore, the mere observation of this feature may even prompt him/her to call
up related beliefs from the other knowledge bases (i.e., agent and topic). Questioning
what the possible reasons are for an advertiser to use such a tactic, for example, may draw
forth beliefs held in memory about what the persuasive agent is trying to achieve, while

recalling ﬁom memory other products that have used the particular tactic in their

 

3"T his phenomenon is thought to occur as a result of classical conditioning (Peter
and Olson, 1999).

54

advertising may elicit thoughts about what the viewer knows about the particular product
category.

The organization of these causal-explanatory beliefs is thought to be in the form of
knowledge structures called schemas. Schemas represent the personally meaningful
associations between two (or more) meaning concepts which are linked in the consumer’s
mind. They are conceptualized as higher-order cognitive structures which guide
perception, thought, and action (Akhter, 1989). And a consumer can have belief schemas
which represent his/her knowledge about virtually any concept, including product

categories, stores, speciﬁc market-related behaviors, other people, and even themselves.

The Development of DRTV Advertising Belief Schemas and the PKM

Cognitive theorists conclude that consumers acquire their belief schemas about
marketplace objects (e. g., products, brands, etc.) in three ways. Schemas may develop as
a result of the individual’s direct experiences in the marketing environment, by observing
others experiencing a product (e. g., in a commercial), and from external sources, such as
the mass media, ﬁiends, family or other consumers they encounter.

A particular direct experience variable which leads to the development of beliefs
about direct marketing is past purchase. Studies have investigated consumers’ past
purchase experience for its inﬂuence on attitudes toward speciﬁc methods of direct
marketing advertising (e. g, Korgoankar, 1997), Akaah et al., 1995), and toward various
types of store patronage (e.g., Korgoankar, Lund and Price, 1985). Research ﬁndings
suggest that consumers’ attitudes are a function of one’s past purchase experience with a

particular stimulus. However, Korgoankar (1997) also found that a lack of experience

55

with a particular type of shopping can also be reﬂective of one’s attitude toward that
shopping mode. For example, choosing not to engage in a certain shopping method may
be the result of holding a negative attitude toward that method. Therefore, while a
person’s belief schema can be derived from certain direct experiences, he/ she may also
hold beliefs about why they choose not to engage in certain activities.

Vicarious learning is an indirect way in which consumers can learn about
marketplace experiences. It occurs by way of observing the actions of others and the
consequences of those actions (Peter and Olson, 1999). One example with respect to
advertising is when commercials show an individual demonstrating the use of a particular
product. And because of direct response advertising’s reliance upon demonstrations and
other types of tactics which try to teach consumers what to expect from a particular
product, it is likely that consumers may have developed belief schemas for tactics used in
DRTV advertising via vicarious learning.

Obtaining information about the marketplace ﬁom external sources is another
factor in the development of belief schemas about advertising. Friestad and Wright
(1994) suggest that both this method, and that of learning one’s beliefs vicariously may
reﬂect the development of ‘folk knowledge’ about the marketplace. The folk psychology
model posits that, in addition to their personal experiences, individuals acquire general
knowledge about human phenomena as a result of their exchanges with personal sources
(e. g., social exchanges with family, ﬁiends and other consumers) and through interactions
with mediated sources (e. g., published commentary from journalistic sources). With
respect to persuasion processes, for example, these exchanges occur when people describe

their beliefs about persuasion to others, or when they hear or read media reports having to

56

do with some persuasion event.

The PKM takes the folk psychology. model into account in its explanation of how
persuasion occurs. It contends that, over time, perceptions and interpersonal
communications are pooled, and a socially-constructed conceptualization of how
persuasion occurs emerges. This conceptualization, then, represents the culturally-shared
set of common-sense beliefs that individuals come to hold about the internal,
psychological events that bring about persuasion. These common-sense beliefs (or ‘folk
wisdom’) are what people will reference when they describe how they think persuasion
occurs (Friestad and Wright, 1995).

Parodies and satirical skits, such as those performed by comedians (e. g., on
Saturday Night Live), provide anecdotal evidence that consumers have folk wisdom about
the tactics typically used in direct response television commercials. This is because
viewers must have expectations and knowledge about DRTV advertisements in order to
understand them. The fact that they do understand them (and perhaps ﬁnd them
humorous) is an indication that they are not only familiar with the tactics, but also with the
negative issues associated with the advertising format.

Based upon the ways in which belief schemas are thought to develop, it seems
likely that most adult consumers’ schemas for DRTV short-form advertising include
beliefs derived from vicarious learning, as well as ﬁ'om information gathered from external
sources. Consumers’ schemas may also include beliefs about the purchasing aspects
involved with DRTV advertising, although they may have never made such a purchase

before.

57

The Potential Impact of Curiosity on DRTV Deceptiveness Schemas

The persuasion knowledge model describes how consumers come to learn about
persuasion events that they encounter in the marketplace. With respect to advertisements,
two of the PKM’s key propositions are that consumers develop and hold schemas (or a set
of shared beliefs) about how certain advertising tactics work, and that exposure to certain
tactics may trigger these schemas, as well as other related schemas.

Given the long-time use of various familiar tactics in DRTV commercials, it is
probable that adult consumers have developed schemas regarding what many of these
tactics are intended to do, and how they work in viewers’ minds to induce persuasion.
And because the formula used in traditional DRTV commercials often features an initial
attention-getting tactic (followed by presentation of the problem and then the product as
its solution) (see Eicoff 1988), viewer exposure to tactics would be the most likely trigger
of a DRTV belief schema (should one exist). Furthermore, because many of these tactics
are perceived as misleading or deceptive, they also may trigger schemas that relate to
other aspects of the commercial that are also perceived negatively. Two such possible
related belief schemas are the motives of the advertiser, and the nature or character of the
particular product featured in the commercial. Thus, consumers may come to hold what
might be termed a ‘DRTV deceptiveness schema’ which may be activated when they
encounter such a tactic, or when prompted to think about tactics (e. g., upon exposure to
an advertisement). A hypothetical example of a consumer’s cognitive representations for
a DRTV deceptiveness schema is depicted in Figure 2.2.

The PKM perspective provides a useﬁrl framework which can incorporate all of

the issues raised in research studies and by DRTV experts regarding consumers’ negative

58

A smart person
wouldn't buy this -_.

Figure 2.2
A Hypothetical Consumer’s DRTV Deceptiveness Belief Schema

I The marketer doesn't ‘
' want to chew product 7_
fully in action "

 
    
 

I

The camera doesn't
show you everything 4-4

4 .9.
0* L-h:

   
  

  
  

 

 

      
     
 

  
   
  
 

   
 
 

  

The marketer is just // \'
2:33;” 00! people My current items
' A DRTV can already do what

 

commercial for

\ this one does
a kitchen oedoet

  

 

 

\

\\

It probably doesn't
\A wort: very well

    
   
 

 

     
 

It‘ll probably
break easily

 

59

perceptions of the DRTV short form commercial. In particular, it can be helpﬁrl in
investigating whether consumers’ perceptions associated with the traditional DRTV short
format are likely to affect their perceptions of the new hybrid format. This is a speciﬁc
concern because hybrids frequently include the familiar toll-free telephone number as a
response mode, in addition to a web site address. Hatch (1999) notes that this is because
many consumers are not comfortable with using the Internet for the purpose of purchasing
items.

According to the PKM, if the inclusion of a telephone number (or some other
familiar tactic) is perceived by consumers as a deceptiveness tactic, it may trigger a DRTV
deceptiveness schema. If so, this may cause consumers to engage in some coping
behavior in order to keep from being persuaded, or to simply not attend to the ad (thereby
preventing them ﬁ'om moving through to purchase).

There is also the possibility that consumers’ exposure to unfamiliar DRTV
executional elements (such as web site addresses) might somehow cause such a
deceptiveness schema to not be triggered, thereby possibly allowing persuasion to occur.
An explanation for this possible occurrence is offered by Maloney (1962 and 1963).
Maloney notes that there is evidence to suggest that, despite whatever speciﬁc negative
beliefs one may hold about advertising, he/she may still become inclined to act in ways that
are totally contrary to those beliefs.

Maloney (1962) investigated female consumers’ beliefs about the believability of
advertising. He suggests that, because consumers understand the goal of persuasive
communications (such as advertised messages), such messages are likely to induce low

believability in the individual in the form of overt criticism. However, this type of overt

6O

criticism of an ad’s believability, “is likely to be a curious or uncertain non-belief, (p. 3).”35
When this is the case, such criticisms may actually be conducive to persuasion.
This notion is based on the theory of cognitive dissonance. Maloney (1962) states:
“If we are to persuade someone to hold a point of view contrary

to that which he now holds, we must ﬁrst get him to “doubt” his

present viewpoint and become “curious” about the viewpoint we

espouse. . .” (p. 4), . . if the advertising claim is supported by

information or experience available to the consumer from sources

other than the advertisement itself, the main contribution that an

ad can make to persuasion may be to engender a curious disbelief (p. 5).”

In other words, in the case of an ‘uncertain non-belief, curiosity is expected to occur
because the consumer is more likely to seek out other information upon exposure to
something contrary to his/her prior beliefs, than they would upon exposure to something
consistent with those beliefs.

This could occur whenever unfamiliar features appear in advertising; and especially
when these elements are contrary to the familiar tactics that consumers expect to see.
Lynch and Srull (1982) explain that persuasion results in this instance because the
unexpected information captures more of the individual’s attention and is better recalled
than is expected information. This occurs, however, at the expense of the other
information that also appears in the ad (or that is stored in short-term memory). This other

information may include other, more familiar tactics, or the observers’ particular beliefs

about any other aspect of the advertisement (e.g., the brand, product, advertiser, etc).

 

3’Here, Maloney was referring to previous studies’ ﬁndings that ads were
considered ‘hard to believe’ by respondents. He contends that this statement can either
mean that a person ﬁnds the message so unbelievable that they would not be interested in
trying the product, or that, although they ﬁnd it unbelievable, they might try it merely out
of curiosity.

61

Compared to the more traditional tactics used in DRTV advertising, the new
features used in hybrid DRTV advertisements are likely to be relatively unfamiliar to
consumers. The use of a web site address as a response mode, for example, has only
come about within the past several years, or so (Hatch, 1999). Additionally, although
some major advertisers have used the format for several years, such use remains limited to
only a relative few industries (e. g., ﬁnancial and insurance services ﬁrms;
telecommunications ﬁrms; CD, book and magazine marketers; automobile companies;
pharmaceutical companies; and tech ﬁrms). Another factor is that, while smaller DRTV
advertisers continue to air their commercials during the less expensive day-parts, major
brand advertisers tend to air their advertisements in the much more costly prime-time
periods.

For these reasons, it is likely that consumers have not yet incorporated these newer
features into existing belief schemas about DRTV advertising. And since they have
probably not come to hold expectations about them at this point in time, these features
may well represent information that is contrary to any negative prior beliefs one may hold
about the DRTV advertising format.

Another factor with regard to unfamiliar features in DRTV advertising has to do
with the possibility that well-known brands (e. g, brands that have a reputation with
consumers, often as a result of the use of brand image advertising) may contribute
positively to perceptions about the DRTV short form advertising format. In essence,
consumers may consider the use of well-known brand names in DRTV commercials as a
positive simply because they carry over the reputation of the brand itself, or of a well-

known advertiser (e. g, General Motors, Ford, or Time-Life).

62

Therefore, based upon cognitive dissonance theory, one effect of the newer
features used in hybrid DRTV commercials could be that they will increase consumers’
willingness to purchase DRTV advertised-products. This should be especially likely to
occur when one holds the belief that the DRTV format is deceptive, since there will be a
desire to reconcile his/her beliefs with the new, inconsistent information they have

encountered (i.e., the new features).

The PKM: A Broader Perspective on Consumer Cognitions

Although the PKM has been inﬂuenced by several of the more prominent,
traditional persuasion models which attempt to explain consumers’ cognitive behavior,
Friestad and Wright (1994) note that most of these have neglected (to some degree) the
role of the individual’s experience with and understanding of persuasion tactics. Attitude-
toward-the-Ad models (F ishbein and Ajzen, 1981; MacKenzie, Lutz and Belch 1986), for
example, are concerned with how peoples’ thoughts and/or feelings about an ad may
inﬂuence their attitudes toward the brand. The major difference between this approach
and the PKM’s is that, in the former model, causes for the individual’s beliefs are generally
not considered for their role in the formation of attitudes.

The elaboration likelihood model (or ELM) (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986) is another
model which, like the PKM, seeks to examine various causal effects of particular features
of persuasion attempts. The basic premise of the ELM is that people are sometimes
inﬂuenced mainly by an ad’s peripheral cues. However, this model does not explain how
or why certain types of cues ‘signal’ consumers to evaluate them, nor does it consider

tactics which the viewer is conscious of. The PKM, on the other hand, does consider that

63

people are aware of and may react to advertisers’ actions in an effort to cope with them.

The heuristic-systematic model (or HSM) (Chaiken, 1987), like the PKM,
emphasizes individuals’ use of certain types of knowledge other than topic (e.g., product)
knowledge. Also in common with the PKM, this model posits that people attempt to
conserve mental effort by using simple diagnostic rules which may or may not be based in
an understanding of why an advertiser has used a particular tactic. The key difference,
however is that the individual may or may not actively ‘consider’ (i.e., be conscious of) the
tactics involved in the persuasion attempt. Therefore, the heuristical rules they rely upon
may simply reﬂect covariation learning (i.e., the individual may not ever attempt to
understand why the advertiser chose the tactic they did). The HSM also does not take
into account the role of an individual’s maturation, or the development of persuasion
knowledge over time.

The attribution framework (Hovland, Janis and Kelley, 1953) is another model
which attempts explain consumers’ interpretations of the causes of advertising and
marketing practices. However, so far, these studies have had a limited view of the
consumer’s interest in interpreting persuasion attempts. The PKM, on the other hand,
conceives of consumers’ interests in understanding these events more broadly.“ It also

considers how consumers cope with persuasion events in order to achieve their own goals.

Statement of the Problem

The broad range of research ﬁndings relating to consumers’ concerns about both

 

36'1’ his is a goal which several attribution researchers agree has not been ﬁrlly
achieved by this approach (e. g., Eagly and Chaiken, 1984; Folkes, 1988).

64

television and direct response advertising (including DRTV’s short form) indicates that
consumers perceive that advertisers use a variety of deceptive and misleading tactics
which are intended to elicit speciﬁc responses in audience members. The perceived
intentions underlying the use of such tactics may reﬂect what consumers believe are an
advertiser’s deceptive motives, as well as speciﬁc beliefs about the nature of products
typically advertised in this type of commercial. Because such beliefs may potentially
inﬂuence consumers’ behavioral intentions (e. g., Duncan, 1986; Alpert, 1988), this issue
should be of importance to advertisers, especially those considering using the DRTV short
advertising format.

However, the recent predictions of DRTV advertising practitioners about the
potential of hybrid DRTV commercials (e.g., that they are ‘the ﬁrture of television’
[Bliwas, 2000]) indicate that consumers’ concerns with the traditional DRTV advertising
format are not considered a threat to the acceptance of such advertising. Interestingly, the
notion that consumer concerns are not a problem may be supported by cognitive
dissonance theory. Generally-speaking, this theory holds that, when consumers’ disbelief
of advertising is uncertain, exposure to inconsistent information may cause them to
become persuaded (Maloney, 1962). With respect to the DRTV short format, if the
unfamiliar and/or positive techniques currently used in hybrids (e.g., web site addresses
and major brands) can effectively ‘by-pass’ consumers’ beliefs about the deceptiveness of
the format, then DRTV advertisers may do well to consider using the format.

In light of this possibility, the present study will seek to investigate the following
research questions: (1) Do consumer beliefs about DRTV short-form advertising reﬂect

the existence of folk wisdom? (2) Do certain demographic and personal factors inﬂuence

65

these folk wisdom beliefs? (3) Can new and unfamiliar DRTV tactics persuade (i.e.,
increase their willingness-to-buy via DRTV advertising) individuals who hold negative
DRTV beliefs (or have demographic or personal traits that past research has found to be
associated with negative beliefs about direct marketing advertising)? (4) Are positive,
new tactics (e. g., major brands) in DRTV advertisements more capable of increasing
persuasion than neutral ones (e. g., web site addresses)? These questions will be

investigated through the hypotheses that are presented in the next section.

Study Hypotheses
The present study is intended to explore the beliefs that consumers hold about the
intentions underlying advertisers’ use of certain tactics typically associated with the DRTV
advertising short format, their perceptions of what motivates advertisers to use the format,
and the character of the products which are typically advertised using the format. First,
the study will attempt to determine whether consumers do, in fact, hold a DRTV

deceptiveness belief schema. The speciﬁc hypothesis to be investigated is:

Hypothesis 1: Consumers’ beliefs about the tactics, product character and
advertiser’s motives for using the DRTV format, reﬂect cultural
folk knowledge. Folk knowledge will be considered as being
present if:

1 a): Collectively, respondents’ beliefs regarding each DRTV
aspect diverge (i.e., are not all correlated), and

1 b): their beliefs across each of the three aspects of DRTV
converge (i.e., are correlated to some degree).

66

Because the consumer DRTV deceptiveness beliefs measure is a newly—developed
one, it was decided that it should ﬁrst be investigated to determine the potential inﬂuence
of personal factors under investigation in the study, such as demographic variables and the
past purchase of DRTV-advertised goods on these beliefs. This will be done prior to
examining the measure’s potential impact on the dependent variable in the study, which is
consumers’ willingness to purchase when unfamiliar features are included in DRTV
advertisements. Also, because this study represents a new research focus, it was
determined that there was no basis upon which to expect the beliefs measure to moderate
or mediate the other independent variables of interest. This may be a point of interest in
ﬁrture research, however.

In previous studies, direct marketing advertising beliefs were found to affect the
behavioral issue of purchase intentions in speciﬁc ways. Akaah et al., (1995) note, for
example, that consumers’ past purchase experience inﬂuences attitude. Particularly, the
more positive a consumer’s past purchase experience, the greater the likelihood that
he/she would evince positive attitudes toward the product (and vice versa).

Korgoankar et al., (1997) measured respondents’ past direct marketing purchases
based on the method of ordering, dollars spent, and the number of orders last year.
However, they did not investigate respondents’ level of satisfaction with their direct
marketing purchases. Their study found that individuals who are critical of direct
marketing advertising (all formats) make the fewest direct marketing purchases of all, and
hold the most negative beliefs about it. This ﬁnding suggests that certain individuals may
hold beliefs that inﬂuence them to refrain ﬁ'om purchasing via direct marketing

advertising, period. Indeed, as Tixier (1987) states: “The customer infers a high degree of

67

commonality among all direct marketers. Whenever one of your fellow direct marketers
generates dissatisﬁed or unsatisﬁed customers, you run the risk of being considered an
accomplice,” (p. 62).

On the other hand, the mere fact that an individual has purchased through any
direct marketing mode in the past may be an indication that he/she has a more positive
outlook toward direct marketing than one who has not made such a purchase. If so, then it
might be eXpected that, regardless of the level of satisfaction one felt with their purchase
experience, past purchasers will be more inclined to see DRTV advertising in a better light
than individuals who have never purchased, and perhaps don’t intend to. This notion
implies that people who have never purchased via DRTV may hold beliefs about the
format that cause them to not even consider such offers. Thus, the following hypothesis

will be investigated:

Hypothesis 2: The deceptiveness ratings of respondents who have made DRTV
purchases before on the DRTV deceptiveness beliefs scale will be
signiﬁcantly lower than will those of non-purchasers.

Although consumer demographic variables have also been found to affect beliefs
about direct marketing advertising, the speciﬁc ﬁndings have been inconsistent. For
instance, Korgoankar et al., (1997) found that critics of direct marketing advertising
methods were mostly college-educated males in technical, managerial, or professional
occupations, and in the upper income category. This contrasts with individuals who were
more positive toward direct marketing advertising; they were younger, of lower income

and education levels, and employed in less-skilled occupations.

68

These ﬁndings are consistent with those of a study on consumers’ reactions to
“800" and “900" inbound telephone calls, which suggests that males, retirees, students,
and individuals in trade occupations are more likely to be dissatisﬁed with this type of call
than females and middle-aged consumers (Morrow and Tankersley, 1994). An industry
study (Lenihan, 2000) which proﬁled the television shopper (all in-home methods) also
found that the average TV shopper is female.

Earlier studies that examined differences between television ad shoppers and non-
shoppers, found conﬂicting results, however. For example, while studies by James and
Cunningham (1987), and by Darian (1987) both found differences in age, the former study
found signiﬁcant differences in gender, but the latter found differences in income. Neither
study, however, found differences in education between in-home and store shoppers.

A later study by Donthu and Gilliand (1996), however, found that infomercial
shoppers did not differ signiﬁcantly in terms of age, income, gender or education from
non-shoppers. Finally, Akaah et al., (1995) found that consumers’ patronage of direct
marketing offers varies as a ﬁrnction of their income status; it was higher for upper income
consumers than for those of lower income levels.

The ﬁndings of the studies cited above indicate that it is not clear exactly how
direct marketing (and especially DRTV) shoppers differ from non-shoppers in terms of the
speciﬁc demographic variables examined. For this reason, it is important to investigate the
relationship between DRTV beliefs and these consumer demographic variables.

Considering that several of the earlier studies found that females are more likely to
shop from home than males (e. g., Korgoankar, et al., 1997; Morrow and Tankersley,

1994; and James and Cunningham, 1987), the following hypothesis will be investigated

69

with respect to differences in DRTV deceptiveness beliefs:

Hypgthesis 3: The deceptiveness ratings of females on the DRTV deceptiveness
beliefs scale will be signiﬁcantly lower than will males’.

Further, while several of the studies noted earlier found differences between
shopper-types based upon income (e.g., Korgoankar, et al., 1997; Darian, 1987; and
Akaah et al., 1995), only one study (Korgoankar et al’s., 1997) found differences based
upon education. However, studies that have examined consumer responses to television
advertising, in general, suggest that individuals with more education tend to hold less
favorable attitudes (e. g, Mittal, 1994) and beliefs (e.g., Alwitt and Prabhaker, 1992 and
1994)” toward television than those with more education. Therefore, the following

hypotheses will be investigated in this study:

Hypothesis 4: The deceptiveness ratings of individuals with lower incomes (i.e.,
incomes below $35K) on the DRTV deceptiveness beliefs scale will
be signiﬁcantly lower than those of individuals with higher incomes.

Hypothesis 5: The deceptiveness ratings of individuals with the least education

(i.e., a high school diploma) on the DRTV deceptiveness beliefs
scale will be signiﬁcantly lower than those with more education.

Another general ﬁnding in the available literature examining consumer beliefs and
attitudes toward television advertising is that these cognitive variables do appear to affect

subsequent behaviors, such as purchase intentions. In particular, in the same way that

 

37Alwitt and Prabhaker’s latter study also found that higher income was associated
with less favorable beliefs.

7O

attitudes have been found to correspondingly inﬂuence purchase intentions (e.g., Akaah et
al., 1995; Korgoankar et al., 1997), so should beliefs. That is, when consumers hold
negative beliefs about a speciﬁc advertising format such as DRTV, it is probable that these
beliefs will similarly inﬂuence their purchase intentions about DRTV-advertised products.
On the basis of this reasoning, it is should be expected that when negative beliefs are held
about the DRTV format, they should negatively inﬂuence consumers’ willingness to
purchase via DRTV advertising.

However, because unexpected features that are contrary to one’s existing beliefs
can cause the viewer to try to reconcile this inconsistent, new information with his/her
existing beliefs (due to cognitive dissonance), the effect of these features may be that they
actually increase willingness to purchase. This situation reﬂects what Maloney (1962)
referred to as ‘low believability’, or a state of ‘curious non-belief, where the individual’s
overt criticism of the message features actually causes them to become more amenable to
being persuaded when inconsistent or unexpected information is encountered.

Therefore, when positive and/or unfamiliar features (such as major brands and web
site addresses) appear in DRTV short-form commercials, their effect on an individual who
holds the belief that the format is deceptive should be to increase his/her willingness-to-

buy from the commercial. Thus, the following hypotheses will be investigated:

Hypothesis 6a: High DRTV deceptiveness belief ratings will be inverselyr’8

 

3"Arr inverse relationship was expected here because, while the response sets for
the DRTV deceptiveness scale ranged from ‘weaker’ to ‘stronger’ beliefs about the items
(i.e., [1] represented strong disagreement that an item was deceptive, and [5] represented
strong agreement that an item was deceptive), the response sets for the willingness-to-buy

71

associated with willingness-to-buy ratings when web site
addresses are included in DRTV advertisements.

Hyppthesis 6b: High DRTV deceptiveness belief ratings will be inversely”
associated with willingness-to-buy ratings when major
brands are featured in DRTV advertisements.

Furthermore, because it is probable that major (i.e., well-known) brands are more

likely to be seen as a positive feature than web site addresses (due to the reputation of the

brand and/or the advertiser), the following related hypothesis will also be investigated:

Hypothesis 6c: When DRTV deceptiveness belief ratings are high, the
major brands feature will produce signiﬁcantly higher
willingness-to-buy ratings than will web site addresses.

However, when an individual already holds more positive beliefs about the format,
such features should not be expected to increase willingness-to-buy, since the features are

consistent with (not contrary to) his/her existing beliefs. The following hypotheses will

investigate this notion:

Hymthesis 7a: Low DRTV deceptiveness belief ratings will be
inversely‘0 associated with willingness-to-buy ratings
when web site addresses are included in DRTV
advertisements.

Hypothesis 7b: Low DRTV deceptiveness belief ratings will be

 

measures ranged from ‘highest’ to ‘no’ increase in willingness-to-buy (i.e., [1] represented
great increase in willingness-to-buy, and [5] represented no increase in willingness-to-
buy).

3"Ibid.

’°Ibid.

72

inversely‘1 associated with willingness-to-buy ratings
when major brands are featured in DRTV
advertisements.
It can be assumed that one reason people may have for never having made a
DRTV purchase before is because of their negative beliefs about the format (e. g., it is
deceptive and/or misleading). If so, then based upon cognitive dissonance theory, the
addition of new features should make these individuals more inclined to purchase (i.e.,

they should show an increase in willingness to purchase). To examine this notion, the

following hypotheses will be investigated:

Hyppthesis 8a: Willingness-to-buy ratings (when web site addresses are
included in DRTV ads) will be signiﬁcantly higher among
individuals who have not purchased via DRTV than they
will be for individuals who have made such purchases
before.

Hyppthesis 8b: Willingness-to-buy ratings (when major brands are included
in DRTV ads) will be signiﬁcantly higher among individuals

who have not purchased via DRTV than they will be for
individuals who have made such purchases before.

And again, because major brands are more likely to be seen as a positive feature
than web site addresses (due to the reputation of the brand and/or the advertiser), the

following related hypothesis will also be investigated:

Hypothesis 8c: Among individuals with no DRTV purchase experience, the
major brands feature will produce signiﬁcantly higher

 

"Ibid.

 

willingness-to-buy ratings than will web site addresses.

Finally, while previous study ﬁndings regarding the inﬂuence of various
demographic variables on direct marketing issues are conﬂicting, it is still important to
examine other aspects of the direct marketing experience that may be inﬂuenced by these
types of consumer characteristics. One issue that can be investigated is whether
willingness-to-buy is affected by new features in DRTV commercials among various
demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, age, income and education).

First, because females have been shown to be more inclined to purchase ﬁ'om
direct marketing advertisements, it can be assumed that they hold more positive beliefs
toward DRTV short-form commercials than do males. If so, then based upon dissonance
theory, males should perceive new features as more contrary to their existing beliefs than
females. Therefore, males should become more willing to purchase when such features
are added to DRTV advertisements than females. The following hypotheses will

investigate this notion:

Hypothesis 9a: Willingness-to-buy ratings (when web site addresses are included in
DRTV ads) for male respondents will be signiﬁcantly higher than
they will be for female respondents.

Hymthesis 9b: Willingness-to-buy ratings (when major brands are included in
DRTV ads) for male respondents will be signiﬁcantly higher than
they will be for female respondents.

Hymthesis 99: Among males, the major brands feature will produce signiﬁcantly

higher willingness-to-buy ratings than will web site addresses.

On the same basis, the following hypotheses will be investigated regarding

74

education levels and willingness-to-buy when new features are included in DRTV

advertisements:

Hypothesis 10a:

Hyppthesis 10b:

Hypothesis 10c:

Willingness-to-buy ratings (when web site addresses are included in
DRTV ads) will be signiﬁcantly higher for individuals with more
education than they will be for those with less education.

Willingness-to-buy ratings (when major brands are included in
DRTV ads) will be signiﬁcantly higher for individuals with more
education than they will be for those with less education.

Among higher educated individuals, the major brands feature will
produce signiﬁcantly higher willingness-to-buy ratings than will
web site addresses.

And, with respect to income level and willingness-to-buy when new features are

included in DRTV advertisements, the following hypotheses will be investigated:

Hypothesis lla:

Hypothesis 1 1b:

Hypothesis 1 1c:

Willingness—to-buy ratings (when web site addresses are included in
DRTV ads) will be signiﬁcantly higher for individuals with higher
incomes (i.e., above $3 5K) than they will be for individuals with
lower incomes (below $3 5K).

Willingness-to-buy ratings (when major brands are included in
DRTV ads) will be signiﬁcantly higher for individuals with higher
incomes (i.e., above $3 SK) than they will be for individuals with
lower incomes (i.e., below $3 5K).

Among individuals with higher incomes (i.e., above $3 5K), the
major brands feature will produce signiﬁcantly higher willingness-
to-buy ratings than will web site addresses.

The next chapter will describe the methods that were used to investigate the study

75

hypotheses. Following a description of the various methods used in selecting the sample
and developing and administering the instrument, the procedures for canying out the

investigation of the hypotheses will be presented.

76

 

 

under
of 1hr
studj
proc

WI“ l

C105
pur;
belii

to-l

Con
$181

was

Consic
rdanc

CHAPTERIII

RESEARCH METHODS

This chapter will describe the methods used in the examination of the problem
under study. Following the presentation of the study sample characteristics, development
of the research instrument will be described. Part of this process involved a preliminary
study that utilized a series of focus groups, which will also be described. Next, the
procedure used in administering the questionnaire will be discussed. Finally, the chapter
will describe the analyses that were performed in investigating the study hypotheses.

The research design of the study was a correlational design which involved a
cross—sectional survey methodology using a newly-developed questionnaire. The major
purpose of the design was to correlate respondents’ ratings on the DRTV deceptiveness
beliefs measure with their ratings on two items that were intended to measure willingness-

to-buy ﬁ'om DRTV advertisements when two unfamiliar features are included in such ads.

Sample Selection
The questionnaire was administered to a non-random, convenience sample
consisting of adults that ranged in age ﬁom eighteen to ﬁfty-ﬁve and older.’2 In order to
ensure that a broad age range of adults was included in the sample, recruitment of subjects

was carried out in several ways.

 

”Wimmer and Dominick (1991) note that non-probability sampling techniques are
considered acceptable when the goal of the research is to investigate the various
relationships among variables.

77

First, three community and church-based organizations in the metropolitan-Detroit
area were approached and permission was obtained to address members at upcoming

meetings."3 These organizations were the Little Rock Baptist Church Optimist Club, the

Mgrppplitan Detroit-area Kiwanis Club, and the Redford YWCA.

 

Over a period of three months in the Spring of 2000, the researcher attended
meetings of both the Little Rock Optimist Club and the Kiwanis Club in order to ask
members for their participation in a study on Advertising. A list of interested persons was
gathered, and they were informed that the study would be administered following one of
their upcoming meetings. A total of 88 adults were recruited from both of these
organizations.

To recruit members from the YWCA, the researcher visited the facility several
times over a month-long period, and gathered a list of names and phone numbers of older-
appearing members and employees (i.e., over the age of twenty-ﬁve) who were willing to
participate. They were instructed that they would receive a call regarding when the
questionnaire was to be administered. A room in the facility was secured and one session
was held for the administration to this portion of the sample. A total of 27 adults were
recruited ﬁ'om this organization.

In order to recruit the younger adults for the sample, orientation directors at both
Michigan State Univergity and we State University were contacted with a request to
recruit individuals for this study. The researcher obtained permission to attend the ‘New

Student Orientation’ sessions at the two universities, and made presentations near the end

 

‘3 This was done in an effort to ensure a sizeable representation of older individuals
(e.g., twenty-four and older).

78

of the morning sessions to students regarding an interest in recruiting individuals for
participation in a study on Advertising. Interested students were asked to come to a
predetermined location following the lunch break in order to complete a survey that would
last approximately 25 minutes.“ A total of 87 individuals were recruited through these

efforts.

Measurement Instrument

The study instrument was a self-administered inventory consisting of several
independent measures, including consumer beliefs about DRTV advertising deceptiveness,
their beliefs regarding the addition of certain new and/or positive features in DRTV
commercials (namely, web site addresses and major advertised brands), their direct
experience with DRTV purchases, and various demographic characteristics that have been
investigated in previous studies in this area. These independent variables are examined for
their impact on consumers’ willingness to purchase from DRTV advertisements, the main
dependent variable under study. The entire questionnaire is presented in Appendix A.

The DRTV deceptiveness beliefs measure was used to operationalize the main
independent variable in the study, consumer beliefs about the DRTV short advertising
format. The ﬁnal measure consists of twenty-two belief statements regarding three
speciﬁc aspects of DRTV short-form advertisements: beliefs about the intentions of
certain tactics used in the format, beliefs about the motives of advertisers who use the

format to advertise their goods and services, and beliefs about the character of the

 

“ The researcher was allowed to administer the survey in on-site facilities.

79

products that are advertised using the format. Responses to the items were indicated
using 5-point Likert scales that ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5);
positively worded items were reverse-ordered (see Appendix A). Ratings on the measure
were interpreted as high in DRTV deceptiveness when the mean score was above 3.00,
and as low in DRTV deceptiveness when the mean score was 3.00 or below. The scale

reliabilities are presented in Chapter 4.

Development of the DRTV Deceptiveness Beliefs Measure

Because no instrument existed which examined adult consumers’ beliefs about this
particular advertising format, the DRTV deceptiveness beliefs measure had to be
developed for the study. The procedure used to develop the main areas of focus for the
measure are presented next.

Following a review of the literature examining consumers’ perceptions of
television and direct response advertising, a general list of tactics used in television
commercials and in direct response advertisements (and possible underlying motives) was
developed (e. g., Boush et al., 1995; Storholm and Friedman, 1989). Next, a preliminary
study was conducted to help expand this initial list to include other tactics that adult
consumers identiﬁed and associated with DRTV commercials, as well as the intentions
that they perceived DRTV advertisers have for using these tactics.

The preliminary study involved the use of three focus groups. The participants
were college-aged males and females enrolled in an Advertising Ethics course at a large,
mid-westem University. These individuals were used because of their exposure to issues

regarding advertising deception (e. g., what constitutes advertising deceptiveness from a

80

legal perspective, etc). Thus, it was determined that these individuals could provide a
ﬁrller perspective on what advertisers’ potential motives might be (especially with respect
to Rotzoll et al’s., [1996] perspectives on self-interest and altruism). Additionally, this
age group also represented the younger end of the adult age spectrum to be used in the
main study. Essentially, their familiarity with DRTV tactics served as a general indication
that the variety of tactics used in the traditional DRTV short advertising format are readily
identiﬁable by adult consumers of all ages, including those with the fewest number of
years of exposure to the format.

The general procedure for the focus group sessions involved recording
participants’ responses to questions regarding the advertising appeals (i.e., tactics) used in
a series of video-taped DRTV commercials (see Appendix B for this questionnaire). The
commercials were taped over a three-month period in 1996, during various day-parts
(including early and late ﬁinge, and prime-time); and ﬁ'om a variety of cable, network, and
independent television stations. Participants’ responses were later transcribed for use in
the development of the initial measurement instrument.

The focus group participants identiﬁed a total of fourteen tactics which were
associated with potentially deceptive intentions on the part of advertisers who use the
DRTV short-form advertising method. This list was later narrowed to include only tactics
that were also discussed in DRTV experts’ writings (e.g., Witek, 1981; Eicoff, 1988), and
in empirical studies on direct marketing and television advertising (e. g., Muehling, 1997,
Korgoankar, 1997; Akaah, 1995; and Bousch et al., 1995). The tactics included in the
measure for this study were: celebrity and consumer endorsers, disclaimers, use of rapid

speech, free (premium) offers, money back guarantees, shipping and handling fees, and

81

demonstrations/ illustrations.

The practices identiﬁed in the research by Storholm and Friedman (1989) were
used as a guide in the development of speciﬁc items regarding consumer beliefs about
DRTV-advertised products, and advertisers’ motives for using the format. Rotzoll et
al’s., (1996) theoretical perspective was also used in order to design items intended to tap
how respondents viewed individuals who purchase DRTV-advertised products (and
services), and the speciﬁc motives that advertisers are thought to have for choosing the
format (as opposed to choosing other advertising formats). Finally, general studies on
consumer attitudes toward marketing were also reviewed (e.g., Barksdale and Darden,
1972) for perspective on the construction of belief statements to be used in this study.

The DRTV deceptiveness beliefs measure developed as a result of this process
comprised the main independent variable in this study. Although it originally consisted of
forty-four items (the original DRTV belief measure items are indicated in Appendix A),
sixteen of the original items were dropped as a result of elimination following the factor
analysis and reliability analysis processes (described in Chapter 4). Thus, the ﬁnal measure

consists of twenty-two items.

Development of New Advertising Features and Willingness-to-buy Measures
Because of the recent trend of so-called ‘hybrid’ DRTV advertisements to include
new features which consumers may not readily associate with the traditional DRTV short
format, two items were also developed to investigate the potential impact of such features
on consumers’ willingness to patronize short-form DRTV advertising, the main dependent

variable in the study. Web site addresses and advertising for major advertisers’ brands

82

represent two additional independent variables under study. Speciﬁcally, these variables
were developed to measure the ability of relatively unfamiliar and/or positive tactics to
increase the persuasiveness of DRTV short-form commercials (i.e., as measured by
increased willingness-to-buy) when they are included in this type of commercial.

Although no published studies were found which examined either of these features,
the idea that they may enhance the persuasiveness of DRTV short-form commercials (that
is, trigger positive beliefs about the format) is based on cognitive dissonance theory, as
well as on the PKM’s (F riestad and Wright, 1994) notion that exposure to tactics can
trigger related beliefs. In this instance, the appearance of new features in DRTV
commercials may tend to increase the likelihood of purchase because consumers are not
likely to readily associate these new features with the DRTV format (and thus call up their
DRTV deceptiveness schema).

The willingness-to-buy purchase intention variable has been examined in other
studies that were addressed in the literature review (e. g., Garland and Rhea, 1988). For
the present study, this variable was included in two items which were intended to assess
the ability of the new features (i.e., the independent variables) to increase willingness-to-
buy via DRTV advertising. Speciﬁcally, respondents were asked to read two short
paragraphs regarding the inclusion of web site addresses and major advertisers’ brands in
DRTV short-form ads. The paragraph regarding the inclusion of web site addresses in
DRTV ads suggested that this was a way for customers to place orders (or get more
information). For the item concerning major advertisers’ brands, the paragraph discussed
how well-known advertisers have recently begun to use the advertising format (both items

are presented in Appendix A, part 3, section 2).

83

Respondents were then asked to indicate whether the inclusion of each of these
features would increase their likelihood of purchasing the product or service. Responses
were indicated on a ﬁve-point Likert-type scale ranging from (I) “greatly”, (2) “a good

deal”, (3) “somewhat”, (4) “very little”, or (5) “none at all”.

Measurement of Personal and Demographic Variables

The past purchase variable has been investigated for its inﬂuence on purchase
intentions in a number of studies regarding direct marketing advertising (e. g., Akaah et al.,
1995; Korgoankar et al., 1997). The purchase experience variable used in the present
study is intended to generally assess whether or not this method of purchase has ever been
used in the past. It was measured by response to the following question: “To the best of
my memory, I_____ purchased item(s) as a result of seeing it/them advertised in a DRTV
advertisement.” The response options were “have” and “have never”.

Finally, a variety of demographic variables that have been investigated in television
and direct response advertising studies were also measured in an effort to help clarify their
impact on the dependent variable. These demographic variables were: age, gender,

income, education, ethnicity, and occupation.

Measurement Issues and Pretesting of the Instrument

Alpert (1993) identiﬁes three measurement issues that can be problematic with
respect to the survey methodology. First, social desirability may be a potential problem in
survey methodology. However, it is unlikely to be an issue when investigating consumers’

market beliefs, since these types of beliefs are not intensely personal, nor do they regard

84

controversial issues. Additionally, conﬁdentiality is assured, so respondents will probably
feel little need to impress the researchers who administered and processed the results.
Second, leading questions refer to whether or not the beliefs are stated in a leading
fashion. To help ensure against this in the present study, an attempt was made to include
grossly overstated belief statements in which wide spread disagreement was expected.

Finally, Alpert suggests that measures should be taken to help assure that the same
person would respond the same way if asked the question at a later time (i.e., reliability).
In an effort to help assure reliability of the items, several nearly duplicate beliefs that were
added to the questionnaire were examined to determine whether responses to similar belief
statements were consistent.

Upon completion of the development of the initial instrument, it was pretested on a
convenience sample of ten adults in order to identify potential problems, such as item
wording and other issues. After adjustments to the wording of items were made, the
questionnaire was used to test the ﬁrst hypothesis, which addressed the question of

whether consumers share a set of beliefs regarding DRTV short-form advertising.

Instrument Administration Procedure
The data for this study was collected through a self-administered questionnaire
booklet (see Appendix A). Upon arrival at the administration site, each group of
respondents was informed that they would be taking part in a university study which
sought their opinions about direct response television advertising. The researcher then
read instructions regarding how to proceed through the survey (see Appendix A for the

exact instructions given to participants).

85

Next, respondents were shown a video-tape which included ﬁve traditional direct
response television advertisements; after each ad the tape was stopped and respondents
were asked to complete a series of questions (see Appendix A, part 1). The purpose of
asking these questions was two-fold. First, they were intended to prompt respondents to
differentiate between the traditional DRTV short-form advertisements under study, and
brand image advertisements. Additionally, they served as a means of ensuring that
subjects would believe that the focus of the study was on their evaluations of DRTV
advertising, in general, instead of on their perceptions about the deceptiveness of this
particular format.

Next, respondents were asked to rate how conﬁdent they were that they knew
what a direct response television commercial was. Respondents then proceeded on to the
main study items, followed by the demographic and personal items (see parts 2 and 3 in
Appendix A).

Upon completion of the entire questionnaire, respondents were debriefed and told
the speciﬁc purpose of the study (that is, to identify consumers’ perceptions about the
deceptiveness of the DRTV short advertising format). As compensation, members of
each group wrote their names and phone numbers (and club name, where applicable) on a
form and deposited the form into a ballot box upon leaving the site (to ensure anonymity).
A total of three $25.00 drawings were held. A drawing took place following each of the
university administrations, while a separate drawing was held following the completion of
administration to all club members. The winner of the latter drawing was contacted by

phone and later received a $25.00 check by mail.

86

Data Analysis
Because the DRTV beliefs measure had to be constructed from the individual
items regarding the DRTV format (e. g., tactics, product character and advertiser motives),
the ﬁrst analytic procedure that was performed was a principal components factor analysis.
The principle components analysis was selected because, in addition to extracting the
common variance, this method allows for the extraction of both the variance unique to an
indicator, as well as the variance attributed by error (Pedhauzer and Pedhauzer, 1991)."

In order to run this procedure and later test the hypotheses, the total sample of 202
adults was randomly split in half using the SPSS program. The factor analysis procedure
was then run on approximately halfof the sample (n=93 ), and the DRTV deceptiveness
beliefs measurement scale was constructed. The remaining half of the sample (n=109)
was used to examine the reliability of the scale, as well as to test the study hypotheses.

Prior to analyzing the data in order to address the study hypotheses, univariate and
comparative analyses were conducted to examine possible abnormalities (such as limited
variability and skewness) in the data which might affect the results. The data was plotted
and examined for outliers and for the shape of the distributions.

In some cases, potential problems were identiﬁed. Most notably, three of the main
variables’ distributions were negatively skewed (namely, the DRTV measure, and both of
the willingness-to-buy measures); and one of these distributions (the DRTV measure)
contained an extremely low score (or, outlier). Further investigation of the distributions

revealed that they were all abnormally distributed. Even after removing the outlying case

 

”These authors suggest that, when over 50% of the variance is extracted in the
ﬁrst two or three factors, the method is the most useﬁrl.

87

for the DRTV measure, neither the distribution nor skewness improved.

These abnormal distributions dictated the use of distribution-free (or non-
pararnetric) statistics to test the study hypotheses. Unlike other inferential statistics (such
as t-tests and Pearson correlations), non-parametric statistics do not require that any
assumptions be made about the distribution of the population from which the samples
were taken (Saslow, 1982). Therefore, all of the hypotheses were tested using non-
parametric statistics.

Hypothesis 1, which expected that consumers share a set of core beliefs about
DRTV advertising, was examined based on the concepts of convergent and divergent
beliefs, devised by Friestad and Wright (1995). Convergence is described as a pattern of
signiﬁcantly-correlated beliefs across different people in the sample, while divergence is a
discemable pattern of differences in beliefs held by the same individual. With respect to
the DRTV beliefs scale, if a set of shared beliefs does exist, then individuals should show
some agreement (that is, converge) across the three belief areas (tactics, product
character, and advertisers’ motives); but they should discriminate (or diverge) within the
three belief areas.

Hypothesis 1 was analyzed following the factor analysis procedure. Once the
underlying dimensions of each of the three belief areas have been identiﬁed, Spearrnan’s
rho correlations were run across of all the dimensions of each belief area (that is, tactic
beliefs, product character beliefs and beliefs about advertisers’ motives). The resulting
correlation matrix was then examined to determine whether convergence and divergence
appeared to exist.

Though Friestad and Wright (1995) used this particular method for investigating

88

the existence of shared core beliefs about advertising, they note that it is not yet known
what degree of convergence and divergence should be taken as an indication that shared
beliefs actually reﬂect folk knowledge. No other studies were cited in this research which
utilized this particular method of investigating the existence of folk knowledge, either.
However, because of the exploratory nature of the Friestad and Wright study, as well as of
the present study, this method seems reasonable for examining generally whether or not
folk knowledge appears to exist regarding the DRTV short advertising format.

Using F riestad and Wright’s (1995) study as a guideline, convergence will be said
to exist if all three of the belief areas in the correlation matrix are signiﬁcantly inter-
correlated. In other words, if one (or more) tactic belief dimension(s) is signiﬁcantly
correlated with at least one advertiser motive belief dimension, and with at least one
product character belief dimension; and one or more of these latter belief dimensions are
also signiﬁcantly correlated, then convergence exists.

In order to test for divergence, intra-item correlations were examined to determine
whether or not individuals varied in terms of how deceptively they view the various items
within each of the three belief areas (that is, beliefs about different DRTV tactics, product
character, and advertisers’ motives). If intra-item correlations are not all signiﬁcant, then
this will indicate that divergence does exist (i.e., individuals do not appear to view all
items within a belief area as ‘deceptive’). If, however, all of the intra-item correlations are
signiﬁcant, this would indicate that individuals do not vary in their view of how deceptive
the various tactics (and other belief issues) are. In this case, divergence would not be said
to exist. Hypothesis 1 will be accepted only if both convergence and divergence are

found.

89

Next, the remaining hypotheses were addressed. Hypotheses 2 through 5; and
hypotheses 8(a) and (b); 9(a) and (b); 10(a) and (b); 11(a) and (b) were all examined using
the Mann-Whiney U-Test to compare differences between groups on the variables of
interest in these hypotheses. Hypotheses 6(a) and (b), and 7(a) and (b) were examined
using Spearman’s rho to determine whether associations existed between high DRTV (and
low) deceptiveness beliefs and increased willingness-to-buy when unfamiliar features (web
site addresses and major brands) are included in DRTV commercials. Hypotheses 6(c),
8(c), 9(c), 10(c), and 11(c), which all addressed whether a positive unfamiliar feature
(major brands featured) produced higher willingness-to-buy scores than a neutral
unfamiliar feature (web site addresses as a response mode), were examined by using the
Wilcoxon signed-rank test. This test allowed for comparison of a respondent’s scores on

tWO measures.

90

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

As construction of the DRTV deceptiveness beliefs measure was an initial focus of
the analysis, this chapter will begin by discussing the results of the factor analysis which
was performed. This section will also include a description of the respondent sample used
to obtain the factor analysis results. Next, the chapter will present the descriptive statistics
for the main study variables, beginning with a proﬁle of the sample used to test the eleven
hypotheses.

In order to provide better insight into the research questions that this study sought
to examine (presented at the conclusion of the problem statement section), discussion of
related hypotheses will be grouped by the research question they address. Therefore, the
results of hypothesis 1 will be discussed in conjunction with the question of whether or not
consumers’ DRTV beliefs reﬂect folk wisdom. The results of hypotheses 2 through 5,
which addressed the question of how demographic and personal factors (i.e., past
purchase experience) inﬂuence DRTV deceptiveness beliefs, will be discussed next.

Hypotheses 6(a) and (b), and 7(a) and (b) addressed the question of whether
unfamiliar tactics can increase the willingness of individuals who hold negative DRTV
beliefs to purchase from DRTV advertising. Another related area has to do with whether
individuals with certain demographic characteristics (e. g., males, individuals with more
education, and individuals with higher incomes) and personal traits (e.g., those who
purchase less frequently via direct response methods) become more persuaded when

unfamiliar features are present in DRTV advertising. This notion is based in the fact that

91

past research has shown that consumers possessing these traits tend to hold more negative
views of direct response methods and television advertising than do other consumers (see,
for example, Korgoankar et al., 1997; Morrow and Tankersley 1994; Alwitt and
Prabhaker, 1992 and 1994). The results of hypotheses 8(a) and (b), 9(a) and (b), 10(a)
and (b), and 11(a) and (b) will address this area.

A ﬁnal research question of interest was whether or not a positive feature is more
apt to produce persuasion (i.e., increase willingness-to-buy) than a neutral one among
individuals who hold (or are more likely to hold) negative DRTV beliefs. This area will be

discussed in conjunction with the results of hypotheses 6(c), 8(c), 9(c), 10(c) and 11(c).

Factor Analysis Results

In order to develop the DRTV deceptiveness beliefs measure, each DRTV belief
area (beliefs about tactics, product character and advertisers’ motives) was subjected to a
factor analysis. The underlying structure of each belief area was assessed by using a
principal components analysis.

As it was expected that the factors were uncorrelated, the initial factor solutions
were orthogonally-rotated and these factors were retained. The factor loading criteria
used required that a variable have a minimum of a .40 loading on a factor to be considered
as loading meaningfully on to that factor, and a loading of no more than .30 on to any
other factor. As a result of this process, a total of twelve items were removed from each
set of belief statements (six from the tactics beliefs area, two from the product character
beliefs area, and four from the advertisers’ motives area). The speciﬁc items that were

removed because they loaded on more the one factor are indicated in Appendix A (these

92

items are in bold print). An additional general criteria was that a factor must have at least
three items loading on to it in order for the direction to be known. While this rule was
adhered to in most cases, because of the exploratory nature of this study, in some cases
two items that appeared to be good indicators of a dimension were retained. This was
done in the case of one tactics factor (factor V) and two advertisers’ motives factors
(factors 11 and 111).

After rotation, the decision for the number of extracted factors for each of the
three belief sub-scales was based upon their having eigenvalues of at least one. This
yielded a total of ﬁve tactics dimension, three product character dimensions, and three
advertisers’ motives dimensions which were considered for further analysis. The
underlying dimensions of each belief area will be explained following a description of the

respondent sample.

Respondent Proﬁle for Factor Analysis Results

A summary of the demographic data for the respondents used in the factor analysis
is presented in Table 4.1. Most notably, 57 percent of these individuals were aged 25 or
older; and females (58%) out-numbered males (39%).

With respect to ethnicity, 54 percent were Aﬁican-Americans, and 34 percent
were Caucasians. In terms of education, 28 percent had a high school diploma, while 50
percent had attended college.

As indicated in the table, respondents were very conﬁdent to somewhat conﬁdent
that they understood what a DRTV commercial was. Additionally, approximately 40

percent had made a DRTV purchase in the past, while 59 percent had not.

93

Table 4.1
Respondent Proﬁle - Factor Analysis Sample

 

 

Variable Percent (n = 93) Frequency
Age range

18 - 24 43% 40
25 - 34 11% 10
35 - 44 22% 20
45 - 55 18% 19
55 plus 5% 5
Missing 0
(ﬁnger

Female 58% 54
Male 39% 36
Missing 3% 3
mm

African-American 54% 50
Caucasian 34% 32
Asian-American 2% 1
Other 9% 8
Education

High school degree 26% 28
Sonre college 50% 56
4-Year degree 18% 17
Graduate degree 4% 4
HH Income ‘

Below $20,499 13% 12
$20.500 - $30,499 10% 9
$30,500 - $40,499 14% 13
$40,500 - $50,499 9% 8
350.500 & higher 48% 45

Conﬁdence (DRTV knowledga)

Very 47% 44
Conﬁdent 27% 25
Somewhat 26% 24
Past marchases?

Have made 40% 37
Have not made 59% 55
Missing 1% l

 

94

Underlying Structure of DRTV Tactics Beliefs

The factor analysis procedure identiﬁed ﬁve dimensions that reﬂect the intentions
consumers perceive to underlie advertisers’ use of certain tactics in DRTV commercials.
These are: Distraction tactics, Risk-diminishing tactics, Embellishment tactics, Enticement
tactics, and Deterrence tactics. The item loadings, means, standard deviations and percent
of variance explained are presented in Table 4.2.

The four items loading on factor 1 (distraction tactics) relate to four different
tactics that are frequently featured in DRTV advertising. These tactics are: use of
celebrities, use of illustrations to show how the product works, use of free offers, and
failure to specify exact charges for shipping and handling (e.g., featuring only the phrase
“plus shipping and handling” in the advertisement).

Based upon the ﬁndings of studies that have examined consumer perceptions of all
but one of the tactics in these items (i.e., the shipping and handling tactic has not been
addressed previously), factor 1 suggests that consumers perceive that these items are
intended to distract the viewer from examining non-ﬂattering information too closely.
Previous studies have found, for instance, that consumers view tactics such as the use of
celebrities, and free offers as reﬂecting the advertiser’s goal of capturing viewers’
attention. Boush et al., (1994) found that adolescent (and undergraduate-aged)
consumers rated tactics that show how a product works (such as the use of illustrations
item in factor 1) as consistent with the effect of trying to grab viewers’ attention, as well.

The notion that consumers view tactics which attempt to capture attention as
intended to distract the viewer relates to the ﬁndings of earlier research. Both O’Mahoney

and Meenaghan (1997), and Stanton and Burke (1998), for example, suggest that

95

ii

 

 

8. as E; .eeeea 2: Bee e. 2e:
05 8.5 €83 Eon. mo $2: .3528 .lom Be
E3283 .2 :96 as: >85. .65 8:83 8 cc
0253:» xoanoeoE a 55:2: 55 new >55 .
ex: 9% and.

3. e2 :5 gas. ms e B e. .885
o... ”58% .896 3.85 Bacon .8253»

€8.55:— a come we >55 a 88:23 .
on. SN 85 on 05 E 23 coo—.358 2: 3.2396 .883
25088 2.55 332.» 05 83:. :32 wow

>55 5 823. 2: e 59.3 2: a are :95 .
8. e2 :5 .8 e5 5 as made 32.8
m. .23 Sean xleﬂe. :83 80303 85 8 2.3 ﬂ m2.

£8585“ ..m=e=5-.m&.. a 23.8.. mum >555 355:? .

a: 3% Seed.

 

5. I: 85 638098 amo— 508 8:35 2: 93E
2 £5 op 68 EB weaves. pea wing? :02: 32.
$89.0 3.55:8 2: :8 race 388:5 85 mu< .

 

 

ea. 9:. a: use as e 9.255 see? .3. eee 25% e5
9. 8.05 o. 0308 a» o. .280 8c. on: was >55 .
ea. 35 83 .53 2.38 ._ en... d2% 55.8 =5 e as: 288

8.5: o. b. has? .65 .33.: 8:85 a :03
Be: Bone 35 magma 8: men >55 cop—3 .
8.. a: 35 em: :2: sconce.
ESE—«E Bozo—=8 F? 8.68m 05 Magda E...
as 5.55 288 one... 2 3:328 a: as >55 .
o\on anogma u ago-«m

 

 

eeesexm 855>$ em and:

 

 

.5555 .5: seem as: PE:
N... 2.5

96

\\

 

 

68828.32 29: 2:2. 32032—9538 a
3.1.2
.62»: :38: n n :5 83:2: bwgbm u 3 2:8 869?: a :o :83 2 3:8 :82 ”207”

 

no.

em.

o\em

2..

8.

mm.

.xb

no.—

2.—

2.: 33 .E2: :2 2 clan: :5 .82: :2 2 Elam r5: 5.: $55
332.» 2: =2 2 : 8: at: .35..” 5:: 3: >55 .
”Em A332: :2: 03:1: 226.: 25::
2: mow—S: 952: z .384. 8: 2.: >55 5:? .
g a:

w~+ $3 .2888 :2: 5:: o: 2 w:::o:_om cm: 8.68:
2: 26:2. 2953 8:3: 2 0:8 baa: M: 2:08:62

{088:8 gig—483803. : 8: 2.: >55 :25, .
3m :3 .358 55 3:2: B 9 m8: 2.3%: 2:
6098 2:05 2:8: .838: a m:::::: ::: @535

:8 2.80 g :23 28.: 3.858% :58: :m :: h .
$6. 3.3 .2. 8 3808 :m 2: E 3:528 2: m:
3%: m: .2... E2: 2.2: EB .268: 2: mg
:82: .2: 26:2. 298$ 02:8 2 0:0: 2 2.:

5.55:8 .332. : 23:0,: 2:: >55 :23 .

382m 54%:

 

«ON 69¢ p.29. :32? .8555: 2:
mw::: 2:852 2 :2... at: :25 8: xi: 8: >55 .

SN 8b.; 9.22.868 win: 8.. 2:02— 2:32 2 0:0: $25 2 2::
.8205: a 5.3 2:0: 8: 5:0 3: >55 :25, .

 

 

8:32: 85.5, .x. :m

:82

 

 

€3.52 N... as:

97

consumers may view the use of endorsers as an effort to distract the viewer from perhaps
looking more thoroughly at other advertising elements (such as claims or other
informational features). The relatively high means for the items in factor 1 also indicate
that these items convey a sense of deceptiveness on the part of the advertisers who use
them in their advertising. When these issues are taken into consideration, this factor
appears to reﬂect advertising features which, though intended by advertisers to have a
positive effect, are perceived by consumers as an intent to make the viewer pay attention
to them (perhaps so that other, less-ﬂattering features have a lesser likelihood of being
noticed or processed).

Factor II (risk-diminishing tactics) consists of items which relate to three speciﬁc
tactics: use of fast-talking announcer, small print (or disclaimers), and money-back
guarantees. The items in this factor appear to reﬂect the perception that they are included
to make it appear that the offer being made in the commercial is risk-free. Speciﬁcally,
these tactics try to put forth the idea that they act to ‘shield consumers from any risk’.

This factor is consistent with Roselius’ (1972) notion of risk-relieving tactics.
These are executional elements that advertisers include in their messages for the purpose
of relieving consumers’ hesitancy to buy. Yet, Roselius’ study also found that consumers
ranked money-back guarantees as ineffective in alleviating their sense of risk.

The higher mean rating for this particular tactic, and for the fast-talking announcer
tactic, indicates that these tactics are seen as relatively deceptive. Although the disclaimer
item was not rated as deceptive, it may be that respondents have come to associate this
particular tactic with the other two, since two or more are often used together in the same

advertisement. For example, ﬁne print ﬂashed at the bottom of the screen in an

98

automobile ad may be perceived as working in tandem with a rapidly-speaking announcer
to make it appear that everything the viewer needs to know in order to make a decision is
indeed presented in the ad.

Three items loaded on factor III (embellishment tactics). The tactics these items
regard are money-back guarantees, free items, and use of small print. While these items
relate to tactics that have been addressed in other factors, what is apparent is that
consumers see the intentions underlying their use in these speciﬁc items as different from
those in the other factors. For example, these items may be seen by consumers as
intended to embellish or add value to DRTV offers. Perhaps they perceive that the
advertiser wants viewers to think he/she may be taking a loss, or that he/she believes so
much in their product that they are willing to go above and beyond what other sellers
would do. A further indication that they are seen differently stems from the lower means
and negative factor loadings for the two positively-worded items (regarding free items and
small print). These items do not appear to be viewed as deceptive.

The fact that the guarantee tactic was rated as relatively deceptive, however, may
indicate that this particular item is viewed by consumers as ‘too good to be true’. This
relates to DePaulo’s (1989) notion of an ‘extreme favorableness’ cue, as well as to Settle
and Golden’s (1974) study ﬁndings regarding the perceived lower credibility of ad
elements that ‘seem too favorable’.

Factor IV (enticement tactics) consists of three items, two of which relate to
consumer testimonials, and one relating to the shipping and handling tactic. Given the
wording of these items, consumers may perceive these tactics as an attempt to lure or

entice viewers by making the outcome of a DRTV purchase appear to be an irresistible

99

temptation. The fact that the means for all of these items were relatively high indicates
that consumers do see these particular tactics (and their intentions) as deceptive.

The items loading on the ﬁnal factor (deterrence tactics) relate to the use of
disclaimers in DRTV advertising. Although this factor consists of only two items, they
both appear to be in the direction of the notion that the use of small print tries to make
viewers think that everything that should legally be stated in the ad is there. Or, it may be
that consumers think that advertisers are attempting to be seen as forthcoming and
responsible regarding all of the important aspects of the deal being offered.

F urtherrnore, because the means for these items are toward the higher end,
indicating that they are perceived as deceptive, another aspect of this explanation is that
consumers may perceive that advertisers, while wanting to give the appearance of being
forthcoming, do not actually want the viewer to know the speciﬁcs of the deal. Therefore,
they use disclaimers in an effort to deter the viewer from questioning the offer. This
interpretation is consistent with Muehling’s (1997) ﬁnding that consumers perceive ﬁne
print in television advertising as a means of protecting advertisers’ own self-interests by
presenting things they don’t really want to say (but have to say, for legal reasons) in

illegible type.

Underlying Structure of DRTV Product Character Beliefs

Three dimensions were identiﬁed regarding the character of the products typically
advertised in DRTV commercials. These were: bad products, better products, and any
product. The item loadings, means, standard deviations and percent of variance explained

are presented in Table 4.3.

100

620020292 203 2:0: 8203:2328: ..

mauza

.808: .382 n m 2:: 008:2: 5:2.» u S 0.8... 20:82.. : :0 :22. 2 :22 8.2 ”202

 

 

 

 

2.. mm: 8.. .2 =8 9 8: >20 3... 8... 2 22083
0.. :8 .8092: .0220: :0 .262: 2: 2.3 8:2: 02 .
5. ...m 33 $252: 52.: .2: :2. =3» 2.3
0.:00: 2: 2:: >55 :82 82.: :2. 2.3 0.:00: 2.... .
no. mm.m $5 .: :2. 0. 82.028 .0m 0.
2:3 2:: : 2 :: >55 : :. .262: : 3.32.: .2205. .
ma. :m.m .2... .208228 >55
: :. 2.22888 w:::..:: 2.882: :8 :8 202.822: .
2.: 8.62: m:< .: 8402M.
00. RN 28.. p.886 5 20m 2: .2: 22: :2: 2.2... 8sz
.5 .88 ..0 2: .2: 2:00: 8.:0 2.2.2. 20: >55 .
m... 2A .23 2.022m =22 :. .20....0 08.: :2:
8:2. :02: 2.2.2. 2: >55 2.2.0:: .20.». 22:02: .
8.. 3d .0: A.822: =22 :. :25: 22:02: ..0 22.0. 2: :2: 2852:
20:022. 0. 20:22 22: 0:32: 28: >55 .
:2 82822 :82
8.. 8.: 2:: .88: m. 22:823.: 8 28. 2'3 20:2:
0:. : bx. :5 0:0 0: 28:: 2 8.62: : a .
cm. and .3: .802. 2 22:02:26: ..0 :50. a 8:2:
0:. : b... ..:03 0.:00: :00» 0: 2 .262: : a. .
2.. 2: .8. .68: 2 22.8206: .8 2:. 2|;
8:2. 0:. : :5 EB 0:0 0: £8.00: 2 8.62: : ... .
l .2 g 82
8:22: 85.53 2 0m :82

 

 

«PHI—55m Eu: gum—0m heuugaﬂu uuﬂ—thh >H-G

Ma. 033—.

101

The three items that loaded highly on factor I (bad products) reﬂect the notion that
it is not the type of ad (i.e., ad format) that is responsible for causing negative perceptions
about DRTV advertisements, but bad products, in general. The low means for these items
support this notion.

This factor is consistent with Storholm and Friedman’s (1989) ﬁndings regarding
the perception that directly-advertised products are simple, useless and of low quality.
The items in this factor also indicate that, consistent with the ﬁndings of Zeitharnl (1989)
and Kirmani and Wright (1989), consumers consider the extrinsic attributes of these
products when they see them advertised. Another issue reﬂected in these ﬁndings regards
a statement that Witek (1981) makes about DRTV advertisers. “The underlying
philosophy has been to put a lot of products on the air in the hope that the one that sells
will make up for the nine that don’t,” (p. 5). Indeed, it appears that consumers may
perceive that this is a goal of DRTV short-form advertisers.

Factor 11 (better products) consists of three items which reﬂect the perception that
DRTV products are better than those offered in retail settings. This ﬁnding suggests that
consumers perceive these products to have extrinsic attributes (such as quality), and that
they provide functional beneﬁts, as well. The ﬁnding is also consistent with what Donthu
and Gilliland (1997) found among DRTV-shoppers. That is, it suggests that a wider
variety of new and different products are available through DRTV than through retailers.

Four items highly loaded onto factor 111 (any product). These items reﬂect
consumers’ perceptions about how susceptible consumers are to being persuaded by
DRTV advertising. Although most of these items are consistent with the idea that DRTV

advertisers take advantage of less rational consumers, the fact that the last item in factor

102

III was not rated as deceptive indicates that the onus appears to be on the consumer to act
rationally in these purchase situations (instead of on the seller not to take advantage of

individuals).

Underlying Structure of DRTV Advertisers’ Motives Beliefs

Three dimensions were identiﬁed which reﬂect the motives that advertisers are
perceived to have for using the DRTV short format. The item loadings, means, standard
deviations and percent of variance explained are presented in Table 4.4.

The ﬁrst factor (low cost/big proﬁts) reﬂects the perception that advertisers
choose this format (over others) for two reasons: because it requires very little money to
produce and air DRTV commercials, and it is a more eﬁ'ective way of making money. The
high means for the items on this factor indicate that it is consistent with issues raised in the
Storholm and Friedman (1989) study. Most notable is that the public feels certain direct
marketing methods allow advertisers to get rich quickly. This ﬁnding also reﬂects Rotzoll
et al’s. (1996) view that people relate the reasons advertisers use the format to their own
self-interests (such as that of making a lot of money).

The two items loading on factor II (convenient/cost-eﬂ‘ective) reﬂect the notion
that advertisers use the DRTV format out of an interest in providing consumers with a
convenient shopping option (i.e., shopping from home, via television). This perception is
consistent with Rotzoll et al’s., (1996) opposite view of advertisers, that they are
altruistic. However, the high means for these items indicate that consumers view them as
deceptive. This implies that, while advertisers may believe that their motivation for using

the format is positive, consumers do not agree. In fact, the negative factor loading for the

103

decombege was :8: 820350368 a

monZ.

.82? bweobm n n 28 0293.6 .355 u _ 20:5 038 58-26 a no woman 2 mane :82 ”2oz

 

Nb.

mu.

o\cm.~_

Nw.

mm.

fow—

ow.

Nb.
we.

$3
352me 855>£ om

mm.m

2am

ﬁnd

Ed

wed
wo.m

mud

:82

53 @352:

maﬁa—96a 85o gaze—z 52: 383858 >55 a swap—5
835:. a is 9 Bacon 25:qu 2 868 m_ a 32s. .65
8:83 .94 85:: £5 8: E8233 .2. 532 SEE <

a: .3222: weir—96m .850 5:» :2. 580588 >55

Cary

a mime 2.2880 Fox—eon a8 2 .563 a z 305. .85
8283 m. 23:8 £5 8: ﬂow??? :88“ SEE <
own. -2 Mam.

.5632“: :0 82282835 :05 :3. 9 35 68 Be. a a

a 8:83 W. 858.. >55 05 8: comfy»? :88. .0955 BF

A
3:82

_ 5 ago—7. o. .33 2820.68 a €25.28 9:» o. =83 .65

a 62cc.“ >55 05 on: macaw—05a :2: :88“ .9255 2:.
o>:oobo..mou\..=oEo>=oU

 

A :3 865282: :05 he 9o. :3. 2 mm», 23 a a 3

8:83 m_ 388.. >55 05 um: £8896“ :88.— ES: 2:.

Gog 30:9: .8 m8— BEE 2 .33 x03: a M: >65—
ﬁomEozom 8263 £59: wow: 03 £88888 >55

33 «an own: 8383 :5 z :5 458635 :55 a Eco woe—S :
>65. .65 8:83 3:88 .558 >55 05 3: 88.522

 

$5.5 Mamba 33

E 88m..—

. _. ”428.,—

 

_ 88mm

 

 

.baﬁﬁsm Eu: whom—om 3332 .ﬁoamtgut. Ema

vi 03:.

104

second item (regarding the idea that the format is used because it is a low cost way to sell
their goods) indicates that this is not at all what people perceive to be advertisers’ true
reason for using DRTV advertising.

The two items loading on the third factor (easy to use) reﬂect the perception that
DRTV advertising does not require much skill on the part of marketers. This notion is
consistent with several of ﬁndings of Storholm and Friedman (1989), namely those
relating to ideas such as ‘anyone can succeed at direct marketing’ because these methods

‘always work’. The high means for these items indicate that they are viewed as deceptive.

Main Study Analyses
This section will address the results of the analyses for the main study hypotheses.
It will begin with a description of the respondents whose scores were used to develop the
ﬁnal DRTV Deceptiveness Beliefs measure. Next, reliability analyses for all of the
dimensions identiﬁed in the factor analysis will be presented. Descriptive statistics of the

main variables will then be presented, prior to discussing the results of the hypotheses.

Respondent Proﬁle for the Main Study

The demographic data for the belief scale respondents is presented in Table 4.5.
Fifty-six percent of the individuals in this sample were 25 years old or older. Females
(63%), again, out-numbered males (36%). Fifty-two percent were African-American,
while 33% were Caucasian. With respect to education, 43% of the sample had attended
some college, and 33% had a high school degree (or equivalent). Forty-nine percent of

the sample had a household income of $50,500 or more.

105

Table 4.5

Respondent Proﬁle - Main Study

 

 

 

Variable Percent Frequency (n = 109)
Age range

18 - 24 44 % 48
25 - 34 13 % 14
35 - 44 17 % 19
45 - 55 20 % 20
55 plus 6 % 6
Missing 0
@3191

Female 63% 69
Male 36% 39
Missing 1% 1
Ethnicity

African-American 53% 58
Caucasian 33% 35
Asian-American 4% 4
Other 8% 9
Missing 3% 3
mm

High school degree 33% 36
Some college 43% 47
4-Year degree 11% 12
Graduate degree 12% 12
Missing 2% 2
HH Income

Below $20,499 11% 12
$20.500 - 330.499 11 12
$30,500 - $40,499 13% 14
$40,500 - $50,499 11% 12
$50,500 & higher 49% 54
Missing 5% 5
Conﬁdence

(DRTV knowledge)

Very 38% 42
Conﬁdent 34% 37
Somewhat 28% 30
Beam?

Have made 34% 37
Have not made 66% 72

 

106

Respondents were very conﬁdent (3 8%), conﬁdent (34%), and somewhat
conﬁdent (28%) that they knew what a DRTV commercial was. Thirty-four percent had

purchased ﬁ'om DRTV offers in the past, while 66% had not.

DRTV Deceptiveness Beliefs Scale Reliability
The factor analysis procedure dictated the removal of a total of twelve of the
original questionnaire items ﬁ'om the DRTV Deceptiveness Beliefs measure (the removed
items are emboldened in Appendix A). The remaining items in each of the three belief
areas were then subjected to a reliability analysis. Cronbach’s Alpha coefﬁcient was used
to determine the internal consistency of each of the eleven dimensions identiﬁed using the

factor analysis procedure. The reliability measures of these dimensions is presented below

 

 

 

in Table 4.6.
Table 4.6
DRTV Deceptiveness Beliefs Scale Reliabilities
Belief Area Dimension Alpha Coefﬁcient
Tactics
Distractors .59
Risk-diminishes .56
Embellishers .26
Enticers .32
Deterrents .56
Product Character
Bad Products .88
Better Products .58
Any product .61
Advertisers’ Motives
Low Cost/Big Proﬁts .67
Convenient/Cost-eﬂ‘ective - .10
Egg Use .34

 

 

Note: Scale dimensions with an acceptable alpha level are in bold print.

107

The guidelines used to determine the acceptable reliability level for “each dimension
is based upon the work of Nunnally (1967), and upon other studies which have examined
consumers’ advertising-related beliefs. Nunnally suggests that, in the early stages of
research on hypothesized measures of a construct, modest reliability of .50 or .60 will
sufﬁce. And, noting that the conceptual value contributed by their scale, Alwitt and
Prabhaker (1992) reported an internal consistency level of .43. Boush et al., (1994) also
report alpha levels of .57 and .58 in their study of adolescent beliefs about television
advertising. Therefore, given that the present study is an initial step in investigating the
beliefs of consumers regarding the DRTV short advertising format, a scale reliability of
.50 and above will be accepted.

Based upon this criteria, a total of seven belief scale dimensions were included in
the ﬁnal DRTV Deceptiveness Beliefs measure. This measure consists of twenty-two
belief statement items. These items, along with their means, medians, and standard

deviations, are presented in Table 4.7 below.

Descriptive Statistics for Main Study Variables
Upon completion of the DRTV Deceptiveness Beliefs scale, descriptive statistics
were run for this measure, as well as for the two other main measures (i.e., the items
measuring whether willingness-to-buy would increase if web site addresses and major
advertisers’ brands were featured in DRTV short-form advertisements). The means,
medians and standard deviations for these measurements are presented below in Table 4.8
Based upon the criteria that scores above 3.00 reﬂect the perception of

deceptiveness, the grand mean for the DRTV Deceptiveness Beliefs scale (mean = 3.33)

108

 

no.

no.

am.

00.

mm.

9.0.

Na.

mm.

2..

co...

co...

omd

co...

co...

0N:

S...“

©©.N

Sum

00m

no...

am...”

co...

2...”

.505 :0. 0. .o>|0._u .5 .505 :2 0. ..:0. I3 ..:00 .65 $55

.28... 2.. =2 2 .. a: .5... :05... 5.... 8.. >50
.2: 6.0.: 0. m5? 2.65 0.55
0:. 02—0.: 0.63.0 ._ ...:.tm =05..--m_- 8: 50 PEG :25)

0.5.22.5

.00 05 5 20... 08.505... 05 3250.6

805.0 5:08.: 2:05.. 3.52.. 05 0:02: .502

000 >55 5 :88... 05 .0 80:0: 05 .0 .5... =05m
.0 2.. a. 0.8 052. 3038 m.

.23 5000 0.55 ..:0.5 2032.. .05 8 0:0: 2 0.5
...00::0::0 mix—0.200.. 0 2500.. 50 >55 66:25,
2.8.. 0...

0 on 0. .0580 05 5.552 .0096 2:05 2002.
3.00.0.6 2005.65... 0 ﬂobo :0 >55 0 56:25»

:2... .0. .5. ..|0-..::.

.2... .26 .. 5.0.55 505....» 5.... 5:0 2.0....

05 0: x20 0. 2002. .0» 0. 20.50 00... 8: 50 >55
.0...— 205 5.8.2.0...

b.0050... 30:059.. 53 8:00... 05 3.00.6.5:

6:“ .05 w:.5 0.000: 8.0.: 0. 02500.8 um: 0:0 >55
02059.0 82 .58 8.50....

2.. 9.0... 2 a... 8 as a... 05.05.. as 059...:
:02: 30.. 658:8 05 :2 ..:0_. 32.03:: .05 5<
.5. £0.50 .. =0... .22. €58 =5 ..

0.55 2:02. 2.0.: 0. .9 50:0: .65 00.5.5 .250... 0
:03 30.. 30:... .05 0:050:85 8: 50 PER. :23»

e. 0. ..0|0:...m..IQ

 

Gm

5.502

:002

2:0: - 8.52:5

 

 

«.60—:55 :3.— o_00m 0,—2.0: 0853.389 PS:—

b... 030,—.

109

 

mm.

ow.

mm.

No.

mm.

2..

:0.

we.

no.

0o.—

cod

cod

co...

cod

cod

cod

cod

cod

ocN

8:0.

end

N..m

cm.m

cm.“

and

gum

mod

acN

:©.~

SN

... =3. 9 0.0 >50 8... .0... .. 50008.0

00 :00 50:50 .02....00 .0 8:00.: 05 .023 0:0... 02
$5550 .:0..0 .0:_. 5.. =0: 0......

2:00: 0.0 000 >55 50.. 0:55 :3 0...: 0.:00: 2....
... 5n 0. 5000500 .0» 0. .6...

050 0 0. 00 >55 0 :. 6:00.: 0 5.30:0 0.0.0.).
..0.0.0.::.00 >55 0 5

55000008 22550 502.00.: :00 :00 0.00...0>0<

1:02.. .2

00.0.0 :. 0.00 0.0 .05 0005 :05 5.0:: .23...

.m .0:..0 ..0 0.0 .05 0000» .050 50:0: 000 >55
0.00.0.0 =80. :. 00.0.00 000... :05

0:2. .02.. .58.. 2.. >50 58.... 29. 00:8...
00.0.0 50.0.

:. 0::0.. 06:00.: ..0 00:0. 05 :M... 050.00.:
0.0..00:0.. 0. 0:25.00 20:. 0006.: 080.. >55

0.0. :00... .052.

.000: .. .:0.:00.:0>00 .0 0:... .055

0:05 0:. .. 5: :5 0:0 0: 6.00:: 0. 8:00.: 0 ...
.000: 0. 52:02:02.0 ..0 0:... .085

.0..0.: 0... 2 5.. ..:0>. 0.:00: .000» 0: 0. 6:00.: 0 0.
.000: 0. 50502550 ..0 0:0.

.05.. 0:05 0:. .. 5.. 53 0:0 0: 000.00: 0. 8:00.: 0 ..

autiseol... .0:

 

Gm

50...:

:002

050.. - 5.52:5

 

5.2.00. 0.0 03:.

HO

00.000-00.05. 0.0.5 050.. 000.03-205.00: ..
00. u 2.
.0200 350:0 u 0 0:0 02000.0 25.8.0 u . 0.2.3. 0.000 50:02. 0 :0 0000.. 0. w:..0. :02). “0.02

 

m...

.0.

no.

00... N...m 35:05.0... :0... .0 0.0. :00 0. :03 0.50 0 0. .. 00:000..
0. .0:..0. >55 0... 00: 0.000.050 :0000. 0.0:. 2.... .
oo... 00.... 5:0... .0 0.0. 9.0:. 0. 5.5 0.05.. 0 0... 30:0.
0.005.050 00:000.. .50.: 000: 0.0 0.0.0.0558 >55 .
00.0 . Em 00.0.: 05.. 00:00.: :05
.. .:.. 0:05.005. :05... 0 5:0 02.0. .. .05 305.
:05 00:000.. 350... .0:..0. >55 05 00: 0.05.0.5... .
0....0... 0.9.000 .50.

 

 

Om

5.00.). :003. 050.. - 00.0555

 

.0008. E. 2......

1H

Table 4.8
Descriptive Statistics for Three Main Variables

 

Variable Mean Median SD

DRTV Deceptiveness
Beliefs Scale 3.33 3.36 0.29

Willingness-to-buy
when web site addresses
featured in DRTV ads 3.79 4.00 1.03

Willingness-to-buy

when Major

Advertisers’

brand featured in 3.68 4.00 1.04
DRTV ads

I’denotes sample size after removal of l outlying score.

107‘

108

108

indicates that respondents’ overall perception of the DRTV short advertising format is that

it is deceptive. With respect to whether unfamiliar features would increase willingness-to-

buy from DRTV advertising, the mean scores for each of these items indicate that neither

feature would increase respondents’ likelihood of purchasing goods through this method

(web site addresses mean = 3.78; major advertisers’ brands mean = 3.68).

It should be noted, however, that a total of 39 percent of respondents said that the

inclusion of web site addresses would increase their willingness-to-buy. A total of 40

percent said that if major advertisers’ brands were featured, this would increase their

willingness-to-buy. Table 4.9 presents a breakdown of the frequencies for both of these

responses.

112

Table 4.9
Frequency of Responses for Increased Willingness-to-buy from DRTV Ads

 

 

%When Web site %When Major Brands
is included: are featured:

Willingness-to-buy

would increase‘:

A great deal 2% 2%

A good deal 8% 13%

Somewhat 30% ‘ 24%

Very little 30% 37%

None at all 30% 24%

 

Note: N = 108 for both items.
' The response sets ranged from 1 = “A great deal” to 5 = “None at all.”

Research Questions and Study Hypotheses
Do Consumers’ DRTV Beliefs Reﬂect ‘Folk Wisdom’?

In order to address the question of whether consumers share a set of core
beliefs (i.e., folk wisdom) regarding the DRTV short advertising format, the hypothesis
that respondents’ beliefs would (a) converge across the three belief areas, and (b) diverge
within each belief area was investigated by examining a correlation matrix of each of the
seven DRTV Deceptiveness Belief dimensions (identiﬁed earlier). This matrix is presented
below in Table 4.10.

Hypothesis 1(a) addressed the issue of convergence. Convergence was tested by
examining each pair of belief measures across all seven dimensions to determine whether
or not signiﬁcant correlations existed. This examination revealed that signiﬁcant moderate
correlations do exist across all three belief areas. Namely, a moderate r of .30 (p g .001)

was found between the ‘Low Cost/Big Proﬁts’ (advertisers’ motives) and ‘Any product’

113

so. uw a:

 

 

momw a...
wenzueoz
2: 253 23. So. 2:. N2 :85 9:9:sz
38 33 as?
2: 2; 23. 25 .52 :5 632a 25. ”Hum
2: :23 23. NS. 2.2 98855.3 ”a:
2: 2.2 2.2 :2 aoaeoiuam ”Ga
2: .22. 82. 955.8 ”.9
2: :25 3522.?me use
8. _ $20855 “F
.32 "on: "on: .8 me Q a. ”2%.5>

 

 

5.5a: 5:50.55 £3.3— mmeeuzaoeon era»:—

36 035,—.

114

(product character) dimensions; an r of .40 (p 5 .001) was found between the ‘Low
Cost/Big Proﬁts’ and the tactics dimension, ‘Distractors’; and an r of .30 (p 5 .05) was
found between the tactics factor ‘Risk-diminishers’ and the product character dimension
‘Any product’.

Based upon the guidelines presented in the Friestad and Wright (1995) study, there
appears to be some convergence across all three belief areas regarding DRTV advertising.
This ﬁnding indicates that respondents appear to agree (i.e., converge) in how they view
these different aspects of this DRTV short commercial format.

Hypothesis 1(b) addressed the issue of divergence. In order to determine whether
or not individuals found differences within the three aspects of the DRTV format (or,
diverged), the correlation matrix in Table 4.10 was examined again. Of speciﬁc interest
this time was whether the correlations between dimensions within a particular belief area
were low and non-signiﬁcant.

Examination of the three r’s produced for the three tactic belief dimensions
revealed two signiﬁcant moderate positive correlations. These were between ‘Distractors’
and ‘Risk-diminishers’, (r = .45, p 5 .001), and between ‘Risk-diminishers’ and
‘Deterrents’ ( r = .32, p 5.05). This indicates that respondents saw the distractor and risk-
diminishing tactics, and the risk-diminishing and deterrent tactics as similarly deceptive.
However, based upon a non-signiﬁcant r of .20 (p > .05) between the distractor and
deterrent tactics, it appears that they do not see these two as similarly deceptive.
Therefore, while two of the correlations for the three tactic belief areas were signiﬁcant,
one was not. This ﬁnding indicates that respondents did diverge in their beliefs about

DRTV tactics.

115

Examination of the three r’s produced for the product character beliefs area
indicated that only one signiﬁcant r was found among these dimensions. ‘Bad Products’
and ‘Better Products’ were moderately correlated, with an r of .31 (p _<_ .001). Neither of
these dimensions were correlated with the other dimension (‘Any Product’), however.

Given that only one of the advertisers’ motives belief dimensions was retained in
the DRTV scale after the reliability analysis, it is apparent that individuals did show
divergence in this belief area. Furthermore, based on the ﬁnding that two (out of three)
correlations were signiﬁcant for the tactics belief area, and one correlation (out of three)
was signiﬁcant for the product character beliefs area, it appears that respondents did not
view all of the items within these belief areas similarly (i.e., they did diverge in their beliefs
about the items in each of these areas). Therefore, because both convergence and

divergence was found among these belief areas, hypotheses 1(a) and (b) received support.

Do Past Purchase and Demographic Variables Aﬂ'ect DRTV Beliefs?

In order to address whether past DRTV advertising purchasers and non-purchasers
differ in their beliefs about the deceptiveness of the format, hypothesis 2 was examined
using the Mann Whitney-U test. Like the t-test, this test allows for the comparison of two
groups, but it is not based upon the assumption that these groups come ﬁ'om the same
population.

Of the total 107 respondents, only thirty-seven (or 35%) had ever made a DRTV

purchase before.“5 The mean for the DRTV deceptiveness beliefs measure for this group

 

“One score was missing from this analysis.

116

was 3.27 (standard deviation = .30). The mean for the seventy individuals who had not
made such a purchase before was 3.37 (standard deviation = .28).

The results of the Mann Whitney-U test show that the difference in these belief
scores was not signiﬁcant (‘have’ purchased mean rank = 47.36; ‘have not’ purchased
mean rank = 57.51; U = 1049.5; 2 > .05). On the basis of these results, hypothesis 2 was
rejected.

Hypothesis 3 investigated whether females rated the DRTV Deceptiveness Beliefs
measure as signiﬁcantly more deceptive than did males. The total sample of 106 for this
measure included 68 females (64%) and 38 males (36%)." The mean for females was
3.38 (standard deviation = .28); for males it was 3.26 (standard deviation = .30).

A visual comparison of these means indicates that, contrary to what was predicted,
females actually rated the measure as slightly more deceptive than males. The results of
the Mann Whitney-U test indicates that this difference was signiﬁcant (female mean rank =
58.22; male mean rank = 45.05; U = 971, one-tailed p _<_ .05). Therefore, hypothesis 3
was not supported.

Hypothesis 4 addressed whether respondents of low-income versus high-income
levels would differ in their ratings of the DRTV Deceptiveness Belief measure. The mean
for the lower income group (income of less than $35K; n = 23) was 3.65 (standard
deviation = 1.12), compared to a mean for the higher income group (income above $35K;
n = 79) of 3.34 (standard deviation = .30). Again, contrary to expectations, the lower

income group rated the measure as more deceptive than did the higher income group. The

 

"Two scores were missing from this analysis.

117

results of the Mann Whitney U-test, however, indicate that this difference was not
signiﬁcant (below $35K mean rank = 47.50; above $35K mean rank = 52.66; U = 816.5; g
> .05). Therefore, hypothesis 4 was not supported.

Hypothesis 5 addressed whether respondents of low and high education levels
differed in terms of their ratings of the DRTV Deceptiveness Beliefs measure. The mean
for the lower education group (high school only; n = 35) was 3.31 (standard deviation =
.27), and the mean for the higher education group (some college and beyond; n = 70) was
3.34 (standard deviation = .30).

The results of the Mann Whitney U-test indicates that the difference between these
groups’ scores were not signiﬁcant (low education mean rank = 50.84; high education
rank = 54.08; U = 1149.5, p > .05). Therefore, hypothesis 5 was also rejected.

Overall, the results of these four hypotheses suggest that past purchase, education
and income do not account for differences in the scores on this particular measure.
Gender, however, does appear to affect beliefs, although not in the expected direction.
Table 4.11 presents the mean-ranks and U-statistics for each of the variables measured in

these four hypotheses.

Can Unfamiliar Features Increase Willingness-to-Buy Among Certain Respondents?
In order to examine whether groups that are likely to hold high deceptiveness
beliefs about DRTV advertising are more persuaded to buy when new features (such as
Web sites and brands by major advertisers) are included in ads, Speannan’s Rho
correlations were run. This method of analysis was used because it does not assume the

data are normally distributed. Hypotheses 6(a) and (b), and 7(a) and (b) addressed this

118

Table 4.11
Mean-rank and U-statistics for Personal and Demographic Variables

 

 

 

 

 

One-tailed
Hypothesis Mean rank U-statistic Probability
Past
Two purchase 47.36
1049.5 p_ > .05
No
purchase 57.51
Females 58.22
Three 971.0 9 5 .05
Males 45.05
High income 52.66
Four 816.5 g > .05
Low income 47.50
High
education 54.08
Five 1149.5 9 > .05
Low

education 50.84

 

question.

Hypothesis 6(a) and (b) dealt speciﬁcally with whether high deceptiveness beliefs
were inversely associated with increased willingness-to-buy when (a) web sites, and (b)
major advertisers’ brands were featured in DRTV ads. It should be noted that the
response sets for the two willingness-to-buy measures were polarized in the same direction
as the response sets for the DRTV measure. That is, possible responses for the these
measures ranged from an increase of (1) a great deal, to (5) none at all for each new
feature; and the response set for the DRTV measure ranged from positive scores (1 =
strongly disagree) to negative scores (5 = strongly agree). Therefore, the correlations

were expected to be negative, indicating that, as scores on the DRTV measure increased

119

(or, became more negative), scores on the willingness-to-buy measure decreased (or,
became more positive).

The correlation produced for the analysis of variables in hypothesis 6(a) indicates
that a low, signiﬁcant association ( r = -.24; p _<_ .05) was found between high DRTV
deceptiveness beliefs and an increased willingness-to-buy rating when web site addresses
are included in these ads.“ Therefore, hypothesis 6(a) did receive a small measure of
support.

The analysis of hypothesis 6(b), regarding whether these high deceptiveness
responses were negatively associated with increased willingness-to-buy scores when major
brands are featured in DRTV ads, produced an r of -.07 (p > .05). Therefore, hypothesis
6(b) did not receive support.

To further assess how these unfamiliar features inﬂuence willingness-to-buy
ratings, hypotheses 7(a) and (b) were analyzed. These hypotheses predicted that the
scores of respondents who were low in DRTV deceptiveness beliefs would be signiﬁcantly
inversely associated with lower willingness-to—buy scores when the two features are used
in DRTV ads. Therefore, the r here was also expected to be negative.

The r produced for the web site feature was -.07 (p > .05).” Therefore,
hypothesis 7(a) was rejected. The r for the major advertised brands feature was also not

signiﬁcant ( r = -.45; p > .05), indicating that hypothesis 7(b) was also not supported.

 

“It should be noted that the sample size for the group with high DRTV
deceptiveness beliefs was ninety.

"It should be noted that the sample size for the group with low DRTV
deceptiveness beliefs was seventeen.

120

Together, these results indicate that individuals who hold high DRTV
deceptiveness beliefs may be positively inﬂuenced (i.e., their willingness-to-buy may
increase) when web site addresses are included in DRTV ads. However, the use of this
format by major advertisers did not appear to have this same effect. Furthermore, it
appears that no association exists between low deceptiveness beliefs and lower
willingness-to-buy when either of these features are included.

Hypotheses 8(a) and (b), 9(a) and (b), 10(a) and (b), and 11 (a) and (b) all carry
further the question of how unfamiliar features aﬂ‘ect willingness-to-buy ratings. They do
this by examining whether individuals who are likely to hold high DRTV deceptiveness
beliefs show an increase in willingness-to-buy when either of these features are included.
Here, inclination toward high deceptiveness beliefs is based on demographic
characteristics (such as being male, and having higher education and income) and on
having not made DRTV purchases before.so

Hypothesis 8(a) addressed this issue with respect to whether the inclusion of web
site addresses would increase willingness-to-buy ratings for individuals who had never
made a DRTV purchase before signiﬁcantly more than for individuals who had made such
a purchase. The results of the Mann Whitney-U test for this analysis (‘have’ purchased
mean rank = 49.76; ‘have not’ mean rank = 56.97; U = 1138; p > .05) indicates that these
two groups did not differ signiﬁcantly in their willingness-to—buy scores.

The result for hypothesis 8(b), which examined this issue for the inclusion of major

advertised brands, was a U = 1151.5 (‘have’ purchased mean rank = 50.12; ‘have not’

 

”The rationale for this assumption is based in the ﬁndings of Korgoankar et al.,
(1997), who found that critics of direct marketing are less likely to have made purchases.

121

mean rank = 56.78; p > .05). This result indicates that signiﬁcant differences were not
found on this measure either. Therefore, hypotheses 8(a) and (b) were both rejected.

Hypothesis 9(a) examined whether or not willingness-to—buy ratings when web site
addresses were included would increase for males as opposed to for females. The results
of the Mann Whitney U test were not signiﬁcant (female mean rank = 55.56; male mean
rank = 51.28; U = 1220; p > .05). The results for hypothesis 9(b), which examined these
groups’ ratings for willingness-to-buy when major brands were featured in DRTV ads,
were also not signiﬁcant (female mean rank = 53.85; male mean rank = 54.27; U = 1315; p
> .05). On the basis of these results, neither of these hypotheses received support.

Hypothesis 10(a) assessed willingness-to-buy ratings when web site addresses are
included to determine whether education was a factor in any score differences. The results
of the Mann Whitney-U test here were not signiﬁcant (low education mean rank = 55.85;
high education mean rank = 52.29; U=l 146; p > .05).

Hypothesis 10(b) examined whether education level led to differences in
willingness-to-buy ratings when major brands are featured in DRTV ads. The results for
this hypothesis were also not signiﬁcant (low education mean rank = 56.67; high education
mean rank = 51.87; U = 1146; p > .05). Therefore, hypotheses 10(a) and (b) were not
supported.

Hypotheses 11(a) and (b) were the ﬁnal tests for the willingness-to-buy variable.
The variable was tested with respect to whether increased ratings would result based on
demographic differences and the inclusion of unfamiliar features. Hypothesis 11(a)
examined willingness-to-buy when web sites were included to determine whether income

was a factor in score differences. The results of the Mann Whitney U-test for this

122

hypothesis were not signiﬁcant (low income mean rank = 52.74; high income mean rank =
51.79; U = 903; p > .05); therefore hypothesis 11(a) was not supported.

These groups also did not differ signiﬁcantly in their ratings of willingness—to-buy
when major advertised brands are featured (low income mean rank = 51.89; high income

mean rank = 52.03; U = 917.5; g > .05). Therefore, hypothesis 11(b) also did not receive

support.

Can ‘Positive’ Unfamiliar Features Persuade More than ‘Neutral’ Ones?

To assess whether or not a positive, unfamiliar feature is more apt to persuade
(i.e., increase willingness-to-buy) than a neutral one among individuals who hold (or are
more likely to hold) the belief that the DRTV format is deceptive, hypotheses 6(c), 8(c),
9(c), 10(c), and 11(c) were tested.’l The Wilcoxon Signed-Ranks (or, Signed-ranks) test
was used to investigate these ﬁve hypotheses.

Hypothesis 6(c) examined the two unfamiliar features for respondents with high
DRTV deceptiveness belief scores to determine whether the positive feature was ranked
higher than the neutral one by respondents. The means for the items measuring these two
features were 3.74 (for the positive feature), and 3.83 (for the neutral feature). The
Signed-ranks test produced a rank sum of 327 for the positive feature; and a rank sum of
414 for the neutral feature. These rank sums indicate that the positive feature was seen by

individuals as less persuasive than the neutral feature, although the difference was not

 

"The positive, unfamiliar feature refers to the use of the DRTV format by popular
brands, while the neutral feature refers to web site addresses.

123

signiﬁcant (2 = -.668, one-tailed p > .05).”2 Therefore, hypothesis 6(c) was not
supported.

Hypothesis 8(c) addressed this same difference among the non-DRTV purchasers.
The mean for the positive feature among this group was 3.76 (standard deviation = 1.06);
the mean for the neutral feature was 3.87 (standard deviation = 1.04). The results of the
Signed-ranks test indicate that the sum of ranks for the positive feature was lower than
that for the neutral feature among this group, as well. The rank sum for the positive
feature was 276, and it was 354 for the neutral feature (Z = -.678; one-tailed p > .05).
This indicates that hypothesis 8(c) was not supported.

Hypothesis 9(c) tested the diﬂ’erence in these features among males. The means
for the positive and negative features were 3.67 (the standard deviation for the positive
feature was 1.18; the standard deviation for the neutral feature was 1.11). The sum of
ranks for each of these features was 159.5 (for the positive feature), and 140.50 (for the
neutral feature). The results produced by the Signed-ranks test indicate that, although the
ranks for the positive feature were slightly higher, this difference was not signiﬁcant (Z = -
.292; one-tailed p > .05). Therefore, hypothesis 9(c) was rejected.

Hypothesis 10(c) tested the differences in positive and neutral features among
individuals with higher education levels. The mean for the positive feature among this
group was 3.63 (standard deviation = 1.11); the mean for the neutral feature was 3.74
(standard deviation = 1.02). The sum of ranks for the positive feature in this test was 197;

it was 268 for the neutral feature. Again, the neutral feature was rated higher than the

 

52It should be noted that the Signed-ranks test produces Z statistics when the
sample size is larger than 25.

124

positive one. However, the Signed-ranks test was not signiﬁcant (Z = -.786; one-tailed p
> .05). Thus, hypothesis 10(c) was rejected.

The ﬁnal hypothesis, 11(c), tested the diﬂ’erences in these features among the
higher income group. The mean for the positive feature among this group was 3 .69
(standard deviation = 1.05); the mean for the neutral feature was 3.81 (standard deviation
= .99). The sum of ranks was 310 for the positive feature, and 431 for the neutral feature.
With a Z statistic of -.941 (one-tailed p > .05), the Signed-ranks test was also not
signiﬁcant for this measure. Therefore, hypotheses 11(c) was rejected.

Based on the results of these ﬁve hypotheses (6, 8, 9, 10 and 11[c]), it appears that
inclusion of the positive feature was not more persuasive than the neutral feature among

high DRTV deceptiveness groups. In fact, it can be seen from Table 4.12 below that the

 

 

 

Table 4.12
Rank Sum and Z-statistics for Positive and Neutral Features
Positive Feature Neutral Feature
(Major Brands) (Web site)
Hypothesis 6c Rank Sum 327 414
Z-statistic -.668
Hypothesis 8c Rank Sum 276 354
Z-statistic -.678
Hypothesis 9c Rank Sum 159.5 140.5
Z-statistic -.292
Hypothesis 10c Rank Sum 197 268
Z-statistic -.786
Hypothesis 11c Rank Sum 310 431
Z-statistic -.94l

 

Note: All 215 > .05

125

neutral feature was rated higher than the positive feature in four of the ﬁve hypotheses

tested (i.e., the neutral feature’s sum of ranks is higher in all except hypothesis 9[c]).
The next chapter will present a discussion of the ﬁndings, along with some of the

conclusions that may be drawn from these ﬁndings. It will also present the limitations of

the study, as well as some recorrunendations for future research.

126

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Overview of Findings and Implications

This study was conducted to determine whether consumers’ negative perceptions
of the DRTV short advertising format reﬂect folk knowledge; and if so, what implications
this may have for the ability of relatively unfamiliar advertising executional features to
persuade individuals. Persuasion was measured in terms of increased willingness to
purchase through this direct response method.

The preceding chapter presented the results of a factor analysis which was used in
the development of the constmct ‘DRTV Deceptiveness Beliefs’. This construct was then
examined, along with four demographic and one personal variable, for their inﬂuence upon
consumers’ willingness-to-buy ﬁ'om DRTV short-form advertisements. The two
unfamiliar features used in DRTV hybrid advertising were also assessed for their impact
upon the latter variable. These analyses were carried out through the examination of
several hypotheses and sub-hypotheses. Four additional hypotheses also assessed whether
the more positive of the two unfamiliar features (major advertised brands) was perceived
as more persuasive than the more neutral feature (web site addresses). Here again,
persuasiveness was measured in terms of increased willingness-to-buy ﬁ'om DRTV
advertisements.

Presented in the next section is a discussion of the signiﬁcant ﬁndings of this
research. These ﬁndings are presented in the context of the research questions they

addressed.

127

Do DRTV Beliefs Reflect ‘Folk Wisdom’?

The initial goal of this study was to learn the core beliefs that consumers hold
about DRTV short-form advertising and whether or not these beliefs are shared by adult
consumers, in general. This expectation was based upon the Persuasion Knowledge
Model (or PKM) (F riestad and Wright, 1994), which contends that shared beliefs, along
with direct experience, form the basis of consumers’ knowledge about how advertising
persuades. Cognitive theory suggests that this knowledge is represented in the form of
schemas, or the causal-explanatory beliefs that allow for interpretation of events. Schemas
are activated upon exposure to a familiar tactic in advertisements. In turn, schemas
activate other beliefs which also help the individual interpret marketplace occurrences and
make decisions about how to respond.

The ﬁnding that a DRTV Deceptiveness Beliefs Schema does appear to exist
(hypothesis 1) indicates that consumers appear to be aware of the tactics DRTV
advertisers use in an effort to persuade, and that they have do evaluate advertisers
intentions underlying the use of many tactics typically used in the DRTV short format.
Furthermore, individuals also appear to assess the motives for using this particular format
(as opposed to other possible formats), as well as the products which they use the format
to advertise.

The study also found that this belief schema is deceptive in nature, although the
grand mean (of 3.33) for this measure suggests that it is only slightly so. This ﬁnding may
be explained by the fact that, while the vast majority of items measuring advertisers’

motive beliefs and tactic beliefs were rated as deceptive, the majority of the product

128

character items were rated as not deceptive.S3 F urtherrnore, the items in the product
character belief set that were seen as deceptive all reﬂect the notion that it is the individual
consumer’s responsibility to act rationally to avoid being persuaded by techniques that are
typical of DRTV commercials. The rationale here may be that rational consumers
generally understand that DRTV advertisers are unscrupulous in their use of misleading
and deceptive tactics. Therefore, the onus is on the consumer to guard against being
misled or deceived by this particular format. Ifthis is the meaning of these ﬁndings, then
one implication is that the ‘caveat emptor’ position currently held by regulatory agencies
like the FTC may be appropriate, at least with respect to the DRTV short advertising

format.

Do Past Purchase and Demographics Affect DRTV Beliefs?

With one exception (which will be discussed shortly), the results of the analyses
which examined the effects of personal and demographic variables for their impact on
DRTV deceptiveness beliefs failed to show any such impact. Of particular interest,
however, are the results of the investigation of the ﬁrst variable, past purchase experience
(in hypothesis 2). The ﬁnding that this variable had no impact may indicate that, while
having made purchases in the past does not inﬂuence DRTV beliefs, people who refrain
from purchasing via DRTV do not necessarily do so out of their beliefs about the format

(e. g., because they think it is deceptive), but because of some other reason. This

 

’3 All but one of the items that measured tactic beliefs were rated as deceptive.
The item that was not rated as deceptive had to do with small print in ads. Conversely,
seven out of ten of the items relating to product character beliefs were rated as not
deceptive (see Table 4.7).

129

interpretation is consistent with Akaah et al’s., (1995) ﬁnding that, while intention to
purchase through direct marketing is signiﬁcantly inﬂuenced by attitude toward direct
marketing, intention to purchase through this method does not inﬂuence attitude toward
direct marketing. One possible implication of the present study’s ﬁnding is that, regardless
of how people feel about DRTV short-form advertising, the possibility still exists for
anyone to become persuaded enough to buy ﬁ'om it (provided they become interested
enough in the offer).

There were also noteworthy results regarding the demographic variables, although
only one was statistically signiﬁcant. First, while individuals with more education did view
the DRTV format as slightly more deceptive than those of lower education levels
(hypothesis 5), those with higher incomes perceived the format as less deceptive than did
those with lower income levels (hypothesis 4). Neither or these results, however, were
signiﬁcant.

The result for the gender variable (in hypothesis 3) was also unexpected, since it
indicates that females view DRTV short-form advertising as more deceptive than do
males. Yet, while this finding is contrary to what other studies that have examined the
DRTV format have found, one explanation may lie in the fact that these studies have
generally examined longer formats of DRTV (such as infomercials [e.g., Darian, 1987;
James and Cunningham, 1982; and Donthu and Gilliland, 1997]). Therefore, the
signiﬁcant ﬁnding in this study may indicate that females view the various DRTV formats

differently; and perhaps they view the short format as the worst.

130

Can New Features Increase Persuasion in DRTV Ads Among Certain Groups?

With respect to whether DRTV short-form commercials are more persuasive
among high deceptiveness groups when unfamiliar features are included, the results of
hypothesis 6(a) indicate that only the inclusion of web site addresses was signiﬁcantly
associated with higher willingness-to-buy via this method (no association was found for
the major brands feature, tested in hypothesis 6[b]).

However, given that the correlation was low ( r = -.24, indicating that only 6
percent of the variance was explained), this should be viewed as cause for further
examination of the web site address feature as a response mode in DRTV commercials.
For instance, one possible factor in why this feature was more persuasive may be that, at
the time this study was conducted (in the spring and early summer of 2000), the subject of
businesses’ web sites (a.k.a. dot.coms) was being heavily reported on in the media.” This
suggests that consumers may have had a greater awareness of web sites during this time.

The rejection of hypotheses 8(a) and (b), 9(a) and (b), 10(a) and (b), and 11(a) and
(b) indicates that the inclusion of web site addresses and major brands in DRTV
commercials did not increase willingness-to-buy among individuals who were more
inclined toward high deceptiveness beliefs (i.e., on the basis of being male, more educated,
and of higher income). One general implication of this ﬁnding may be that, when
consumers recognize a DRTV commercial (regardless of whether it includes unfamiliar

features), their deceptiveness schema is triggered.

 

“Shortly aﬁer the study, however, the ‘fall of the dot.coms’ began to be reported
on (e. g., Detroit News, 8/30/00). Had the study been conducted following this period, the
results might have been affected.

131

It should be noted, however, that because the mean rating for DRTV beliefs
indicates that they were not viewed as extremely deceptive, they may represent what
Maloney (1962) called ‘uncertain non-beliefs’. When this is the case, according to
Maloney’s interpretation of dissonance theory, exposure to information that is contrary to
such beliefs may effectively persuade. Therefore, based on ﬁnding that the inclusion of
web site addresses in DRTV advertising did increase willingness-to-buy, a small degree of

support for Maloney’s contention may be oﬂ’ered by this study.

Are Positive New Features More Persuasive than Neutral Ones?

The ﬁnal area of interest in this study addressed whether a more positive unfamiliar
feature would improve the persuasiveness of DRTV commercials more than a neutral one.
Because the study results indicated that the four hypotheses addressing this area were not
supported, not much can be drawn from this ﬁnding. However, given that the neutral
feature (web site addresses) produced more high ratings on the willingness-to-buy
measure than did the more positive feature (major advertisers’ brands), this may bolster
the earlier ﬁndings about inclusion of the web site feature in DRTV short-form

advertising.

Limitations of the Study
There are several limitations regarding the ﬁndings of the current study. First, it is
important to note that respondents’ reactions to speciﬁc DRTV advertisements were not
assessed, but rather their generalized beliefs about the types of tactics that these

commercials commonly rely upon, and what the advertiser has in mind when these ads are

132

being conceived.

Second, the study did not assess level of satisfaction among those who had made
DRTV purchases before. The reason for this was based in an attempt to isolate lack of
purchase as a possible indication of high DRTV deceptiveness beliefs. This notion
stemmed from Korgoankar’s (1997) ﬁnding that critics of direct marketing advertising
also make the lowest number of purchases using this method.

Another limitation is that, while the sample utilized does reﬂect a range of adult
consumers, it does not necessarily represent the entire U. S. population. This is especially
important given the fact that the data in the study were not normally distributed. As a
consequence, the speciﬁc levels of the construct ‘DRTV deceptiveness beliefs’ may not be
generalizable to the entire population.

A fourth limitation of this study has to do with the fact that it used survey
methodology. Although this method offers several advantages (e. g., it can assess a wide
range of information at a relatively low cost), it does have disadvantages when it is
compared with other research methods. Kerlinger (1986) notes, for example, that the
scope of survey information is usually gained at the expense of depth (that is, it does not
contribute as well to the full understanding of an issue as other methods might). Another
weakness of the survey method is that it can temporarily lift the respondent out of his/her
own social context, and thereby elicit unnatural responses. Additionally, other methods
may work better to rule out the inﬂuence of (or control for) extraneous variables that may
affect the study results. However, Babbie (1990) notes that, while a comprehensive
inquiry would proﬁt from the use of different methods focused on a speciﬁc topic (such as

DRTV advertising beliefs), the survey method can provide a rigorous, ﬁrst step in

133

explaining a phenomenon.

Recommendations for Future Research

Based upon the ﬁndings of this research, hybrid DRTV commercials that use a
combination of traditional (e. g., telephone response mode) and new features (e. g., a web
site address) may have to do more to distinguish themselves if they are to bypass
consumers’ deceptiveness schemas. Given the controversy that stems from DRTV
practitioners’ contention that hybrid DRTV can supplant brand image advertising, and
DRTV experts’ contention that the main purpose of direct response is to move consumers
through to purchase, research should be carried out which examines how eﬂ‘ective
executional features that are not currently in the traditional DRTV repertoire (such as
humor, for example) are at moving consumers through to purchase. This line of research
would be of interest to practitioners, as well as to academic researchers.

Also, although advertising tactics were the focal point of the present study, they
are not the only features which can trigger beliefs upon exposure to DRTV commercials.
According to the PKM, the persuasion knowledge base (where knowledge about
advertising tactics and intentions is held) works by guiding the observer’s attention to
whatever aspects of a message become of interest. Theoretically then, when one is
exposed to anything they consider novel or unexpected (such as an extremely unique
product, for example), this exposure may cause other belief schemas (and perhaps more
positive ones) to be activated.

The cognitive response method could be used to identify the responses generated

by consumers when they are exposed to DRTV products that are innovative. This method

134

could also help broaden both advertisers’ and researchers’ understanding of how
consumers process information upon exposure to variety of tactics, products and brands in

an experimental setting.

135

APPENDIX A—Questionnaire Booklet

136

Consumer Beliefs about Direct Response
Television Advertising Survey

— General Instructions —

This survey will ask you about your beliefs and opinions regarding a particular
We of television W: Direct Response Television (or, DRTV)
commercials. It consists of three parts and will take about 20 minutes to complete.

Please take a few moments to read the instructions preceding each section before
you begin to answer any questions. Your answers will be kept anonymous, so
please do not write your name or any other personal information on any part of
this questionnaire.

Please note that you indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by
completing and returning this questionnaire. However, you may choose not to
answer any question, or to discontinue at any time. Thank you very much for your

participation.

137

Moderator Instructions for Evaluating DRTV Advertisements:

“Direct Response Television Advertisements (or, DRTV Ads) are a particular kind of
television commercial that advertisers use to sell products directly and to inform
consumers about their products and services.”

“The two most important features about this commercial format is that 1) they ask the
viewer to respond immediately by calling a toll-free phone number to order; and 2) they
are usually approximately one or two minutes long (in other words, we’re not talking
about “infomercials”, which are usually 15 minutes or longer). Other commercial formats
do not usually include this feature. These days, this format is used for a variety of products
and services.”

“What I would like to do now is have you watch a series of ﬁve television commercials for
various products/services. Please answers the questions regarding each commercial in
Part 1 of the questionnaire.” (Moderator will stop after each spot is shown and wait for
approximately 2 minutes for respondents to record answers. S/he will also review the
deﬁnition for DRTV commercials if asked to.)

“Finally, there is one last question for this part of the survey. Please read question 6 and
indicate how conﬁdent you are that you no_w_ know what “Direct Response TV Ads” are.”
(They will indicate their answer on a ﬁve-point scale ranging ﬁ'om (1) very conﬁdent to
(5) not conﬁdent at all.)

138

Consumer Opinions of DRTV Commercials

Instructions: Please answer the following questions about each of the ﬁve DRTV

commercials you see (in order of their appearance).

(DRTV commercial #1 was shown here):

1.

DRTV Commercial? Yes No (Circle one)

What was the product/service?

 

Did you lﬂLe or dislike the commercial? (Circle one)

 

Give a short reason why or why not: (Example:
Humorous, informative, etc.)

 

(DRTV commercial #2 was shown here):

2.

DRTV Commercial? Yes No (Circle one)

What was the product/service?

 

Did you 111g or dislike the commercial? (Circle one)

Give a short reason why or why not:

 

(DRTV commercial #3 was shown here):

3.

DRTV Commercial? Yes No (Circle one)

What was the product/service?

 

Did you ﬁre or dislike the commercial? (Circle one)

 

Give a short reason why or why not:

 

139

(DRTV commercial #4 was shown here):

4.

DRTV Commercial? Yes No (Circle one)

What was the product! service?

 

Did you l_i_l<_e or dislike the commercial? (Circle one)

Give a short reason why or why not:

 

(DRTV commercial #5 was shown here):

5.

6.)

DRTV Commercial? Yes No (Circle one)

What was the product/service?

 

Did you liﬁ or dislike the commercial? (Circle one)

Give a short reason why or why not:

 

How conﬁdent are you that you no_w know what a Direct Response Television Ad
is? (Check the number which describes your conﬁdence level.)

Very Not

conﬁdent conﬁdent
at all

‘1— 2_— 3— T T

140

Pg; 2 - Section 1
Consumer Beliefs About DRTV Commercials

Inﬂructions: The following statements represent beliefs that people have about many of
the tactics or techniques they recognize in DRTV commercials.

Although other types of commercials may use some of these same tactics, please evaluate
each statement only with respect to ads done in the DR TV format discussed earlier.

1. When DRTV ads use small print, it always makes
me think they’re trying to trick me.
Strongly Dingo: Dis-em Ame Strongly
Disagree Somewhat Age:
1 2 3 4 5
2. DRTV ads that use a “fast-talking” announcer are merely done that way to
get the viewer excited about the opportunity to buy the product being
advertised.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree w
W Somewhat AW
1 2 3 4 s
3. When DRTV ads offer m items with a purchase, this is
strictly done to reward people for being customers.
Strongly Disayee Disagree Agree Strongly
Disagree Somewhat Agree
1 2 3 4 s
4. DRTV ads with small print use it to tell the viewer things
they don’t want to tell them, but have to tell them.
Strongly Disagree Disag’ee Agree my
Ding-cc Somewhat A906
1 2 3 4 5

Note: Bold print indicates items that were dropped following factor analysis.

141

10.

When DRTV ads use a successﬁ11-looking consumer’s testimony, it’s usually
done to make viewers believe the product had something to do with their
success.

Strondy Diner" Disaster: Agree Strongly
1 2 3 4 A?“

DRTV ads only use small print just to reinforce things

the announcer already said.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Ages Stately
. 1 2 3 4 A?”

DRTV ads use celebrities to make people think that just
purchasing the product will somehow magically transform their life.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly
1 2 3 4 5

Ads that purposely don’t tell the consumer exactly how much shipping
and handling will cost do this to make the product seem less expensive.

 

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly
Disagree Somewhat Agee
1 2 3 4 5

People who buy products from DRTV ads that feature a consumer
testimonial never end up as satisfied as the consumer in the ad seemed to

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly
Disagree Somewhat Agree
1 2 3 4 5

DRTV ads that demonstrate how the product works usually do
give people a realistic idea of what they can expect when
they try the product at home.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly
Disagree Somewhat Agree
1 2 3 4 5

142

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

Whenever DRTV ads feature a “fast-talking” announcer, this is
done so that viewers won’t think about what is actually being said in the ad.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Aye: my
I 2 3 4 A95“

Small print at the bottom of the screen in DRTV ads really means
the viewer should digging almost everything the announcer said in the ad.

Strongly Disagree Dingo: Agree My
1 2 3 4 A?”

DRTV ads use hard-to-read print because it includes
things they don’t really want people to notice.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly
1 2 3 4 5

DRTV ads use ‘ﬁ'ee offers’ to get people to pick up the phone
and dial, without thinking it over ﬁrst.

Strongly Disayee Disag'ee Agree My
I 2 3 4 A?“

If an ad doesn’t speciﬁcally state what it costs for shipping and handling
a product, people should expect the shipping fees to be higher than normal.

SW! Dina" Disasm Asm Strongly
1 2 3 4 A?“

Celebrities are usually used in DRTV ads to get people to think that if they

use this product, then their life can be just as ‘worry-free’ as the celebrity’s
probably is.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly
Disagree Somewhat Agree
I 2 3 4 5

143

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

DRTV ads that mention a money-back guarantee do so because
they know that, even if purchasers are n_ot satisﬁed, most of them
won’t take the time to return the product.

1 2 3 4 A83“

Whenever a DRTV ad offers a money-back guarantee, people
should expect returning the product to be a big hassle.

Strongly Disagee Disag'oe Agree Strongly
Disag’ee Somewhat Age
1 2 3 4 5

When DRTV ads feature a ‘regular’ consumer, this is done to
make viewers believe that merely buying the product will make
them just as happy as the consumer in the ad seemed to be.
Strongly Disagree Dissent Agree Strongly

' Somewhat Agree

Dmyee
l 2 3 4 5

DRTV ads that show before and qfter pictures are usually alum; results
for people who buy the product aren’t nearly as good as was shown in the
ad.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly
1 2 3 4 5

When DRTV ads use illustrations that show how well a product works,
they usually try to make people think it will perform better than it actually will.

Strongly Disagree Disayee Agree Strongly
1 2 3 4 A95,“

144

Part 2 - Section 2
Consumer Beliefs about the Products Sold in DRTV Ads

mm: The following statements represent beliefs that people have about the
products advertised in DRTV commercials.

Although other types of commercials may use some of the same tactics, please evaluate
each statement only with respect to ads done in the DRTV format discussed earlier.

1. Advertisers can sell practically anything successﬁrlly in a DRTV commercial.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Stately
1 2 3 4 3
2. Merely showing a product in a DRTV ad is a sure way to get somebody to buy
it.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly
1 2 3 4 5
3. DRTV items provide more solutions to household problems than

the kinds of products found in retail stores.

Smaly Dinette Dis-ow Acne Strongly
1 2 3 4 s
4. Products sold through DRTV are usually much better than those
offered in retail stores.
Stu-sly Disagree Dim Agree Strongly
Dingo: Somewhat A906
1 2 3 4 5
5. DRTV ads usually offer goods that are of equal or higher quality than
those that are sold in stores.
Strongly Disagee Dingo: Agree 31'0“le

1 2 3 4 5

145

10.

11.

12.

If a product is useless, no one will buy it (no matter what kind of advertisement
is used).

Strongly Disagree Diuyoe Agree my
. I 2 3 4 A?“

If a product is no good, people won’t buy it (no matter what kind of
advertisement is used).

1 2 3 4 A83"”

The people who buy things ﬁ'om DRTV ads are people who
will buy just about anything.

My Dissent Disagree Agree Strongly
1 2 3 4 A?”

No matter what the product or service, anybody can be successful
if they use DRTV ads to sell it.
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree SW?

' Somewhat Aye:

Dtsag'ee
l 2 3 4 5

If a product is unsafe, no one will buy it (no matter what kind of
advertisement is used).
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly

Somewhat Aye:

Disagree
1 2 3 4 5

Products sold in retail stores are generally safer than the products
people buy through DRTV ads.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree W
I 2 3 4 5

The safety standards for products sold through DRTV are just
as high as those sold in retail stores.

Sim-Isl! Disagree Dhagree Agree Strongly
1 2 3 4 s

146

P 3 - i n 1

Consumer Beliefs about DRTV Advertisers
Instgtctigns: For this part of the survey you will be asked to read several statements
that relate to why “YOU ” think Advertisers use the DRTV commercial format

discussed earlier.

Please read the items below and indicate how much you agree or disagree with each
statement by circling the number that corresponds with your response.

1. The primary reason advertisers use the DRTV format is because
it is a low cost way to sell their products/services on television.
Strongly Dingo: Dingo: Agree My
Disagree Somewhat Ago:
1 2 3 4 5
2. Advertisers use the DRTV format mainly because they know that it
takes only a small investment, but it will produce huge proﬁts.
My Disagree Disagree Ago: Strongly
Dingo: Somewhat AW
1 2 3 4 5
3. The primary reason that advertisers use the DRTV format is because they
want to give consumers a convenient way to shop.
Strongly Disagree Dingo: Age: My
1 2 3 4 5
4. A major reason advertisers use DRTV ads is because they really are
interested in saving consumers money (by eliminating the retailer’s profits).
Strongly Disagree Disagree Arm Stronrly
Din-gm Somewhat AIR.
1 2 3 4 s
5. Advertisers who regularly use the DRTV format know more about how to

get consumers to react in the ways they want them to than advertisers who
don’t use it.

Strongly Disagree MN! All" W
I 2 3 4 5

147

10.

11.

A major reason advertisers use this format is because they know it is easier to
tap people’s emotions using a DRTV commercial than with other advertising
methods.

Stfmsly Divan: Disagree Ago: Strongly
1 2 3 4 A?

DRTV commercials are used mainly because advertisers know it’s a
quick way to make lots of money.

Strongly Dingo: Dingo: Agree Strongly
1 2 3 4 A3"

The primary reason they use DRTV commercials is because these
advertisers are genuinely interested in benefitting the consumers who
purchase their products and services.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly
I 2 3 4 5

A major reason that advertisers use this format is because they know it is
easier to persuade mph to buy a product through a DRTV commercial
than through other advertising methods.
Sawﬂy Disagree Dissolve Acne My
Disagree Somewhat Ago:

1 2 3 4 3

DRTV advertisers really believe in the products/services they sell.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree w
I 2 3 4 5

The main reason advertisers use the DRTV format is because it is a sure
way to sell lots of their merchandise.

Disagree
1 2 3 4 5

Strongly Disagree Dim Agree Smaly
Somewhat Age:

148

ngt 3 - Sggtign 2

Consumers’ DRTV Purchase Intentions

Instructions: Please read the paragraphs below about DRTV advertisers and then answer
each of the statements that follow.

A.

Many DRTV advertisements now include web site addresses as a way for
customers to place orders (or get more information about the product/service).
With this in mind, please read the following statement and indicate how much
yo_u would be inﬂuenced to order a product (or service) from a DRTV
commercial because of this new feature (a web site).

An ad featuring an advertisers’ web site would
increase my likelihood of purchasing the product! service .

A
Greatly good Some- Very None
deal what little at all
1 2 3 4 5

Recently, many well-known advertisers have started to use DRTV commercials
to sell their products/services (and also as a way for consumers to learn more
about their brands). Please read the following statement and indicate how much
my would be inﬂuenced to order a product (or service) from a DRTV
commercial if major advertisers (like Procter and Gamble, General Electric)
started to use this type of commercial.

If more major advertisers started to use DRTV ads to sell their products, this
would increase my likelihood of purchasing the product/ service

A
Greatly good Some- Very None
deal what little at all
1 2 3 4 5

149

Fag 3 - Sgtign 3

Consumer Demographics

Instmgtigns: Please answer the following questions about yourself by
placing a check mark next to the appropriate response category.

1. Within the past year, I_ purchased 4. I am:
item(s) or service(s) as a result of seeing ,
it/them advertised in a DRTV a. Female
advertisement. b. Male
Have
Have not
2. To the best of my memory, I _ 5. My ethnicity or nationality is:
purchased item(s) or service(s) as a result
of seeing it/them advertised in a DRTV a. Caucasian
advertisement. b. Aﬁican-Arnerican
c. Hispanic or Latino
Have (1. Asian or Asian-American
_e. Other
Have never
3. My age is: 6. My household income is:
a. 18 - 24 a. Below $20,499
b. 25 - 34 b. $20,500 to $30,499
c. 35 - 44 c. $30,500 to $40,499
(1. 45 - 54 (1. $40,500 to $50,499
e. 55 or older e. $50,500 or above

150

7. My highest education level or
degree attained is:

___a. High school or equivalent
_b. Some college

_c. Four-year degree

___d. Graduate degree

8. My current occupation is in the
area:

 

Technical
Managerial
Professional
Clerical
Other

151

 

APPENDIX B—Focus Group Questionnaire

152

In

Focus Group Questions

' n : For each of the ads that you see, you will be asked a series of questions

which you should think about and express your opinions about.

(DRTV Ad #1 was shown here)

1.

2.

10.

11.

Do you recall seeing this Ad?

What types of persuasion appeals or approaches does the advertiser seem to be
using in this ad?

By using each kind of appeal you’ve mentioned, what do you think the advertiser
is trying to do?

Speciﬁcally, what do you think the advertiser is tying to make the viewer think
or feel about the product?

How does this work? In other words, what do you think is the association that
people make in their minds when they see, for example, a celebrity in this ad?

Who do you think this ad is targeted to?

Now, considering the appeals used and the intended target, how appropriate do
you think this ad is for the target group? Probe: Do you think it’s ‘fair’ to use
this appeal for this target audience?

By using these appeals, do you think the advertiser is taking advantage of the
targeted viewer in any way? Why? Why not?

How effective do you think this ad will be on the intended target audience?

What is the net impression that the target consumer might get after seeing this
ad?

Does this ad misled the target consumer in any way you can think of?

(Next, DRTV Ads # 2 through 12 were shown; each was followed by these 11 questions)

153

REFERENCES

154

JOURNAL ARTlCLES AND PERIQDIQALS

Aaker, David A. and Douglas M. Stayman (1990), “Measuring Audience Perceptions of
Commercials and Relating Them to Ad Impact,” Journal of Advertising
Research, (August/September), 7-17.

Adagecom (1999), [URL: http://adage.com/dataplace/archives/dp337.html].

Adagecom (1999), [URL: http://adage.com/dataplace/archives/dp394.html].

Adagecom (2000), [URL: http:lladage.com/dataplace/archives/dp446.html].

Akaah, Ishmael, Korgoankar, Pradeep, and Daulatrarn Lund (1995), “Direct Marketing
Attitudes,” Journal of Business Research, 2 (Nov), 211-220.

Akhter, Syed H. ( 1989), “Schematic Information Processing: Direct Marketing and
Purchase Decisions,” Joornﬂ of Dirg Mgketing, 2 (Spring), 31-38.

Alba, Joseph W., and J. Wesley Hutchison (1987), “Dimensions of Consumer Expertise,”
Joumg of Consumer Reseirch, 13 (March), 411-545.

Alpert, Frank (1993 ), “Consumer Market Beliefs and Their Managerial Implications,” 113
Joomﬂ of Consumer Mgkging, 10(2), 56-71.

Alter, Stewart (1990), “O’Toole Preaches ‘New Advertising,”’ Adweek, March 19.

Alwitt, Linda R, and Paul R. Prabhaker (1992), Functional and Belief Dimensions of
Attitudes to Television, Journal of Advertising Research, (Sept/Oct), 30-46.

(1994), “Identifying Who Dislikes Television Advertising,” Journal of
Advegtising Research, (Nov), 17-22.

Anderson, John R. (1982), “Acquisition of Cognitive Skill,” Psychologioat Reviow, 89
(MW). 369-406.

 

Andrews, Craig J. (1989), “The Dimensionality of Beliefs Toward Advertising in
General,” Journg of Advertising 18 (1), 26-35.

Andrews, Kelly (1999), “Selling Short,” Tgtgot Marketing, 22 (3), 5667.

Armstrong, Gary M., Metin N. Gurol, and Frederick A. Russ (1980), “Deﬁning and
Measuring Deception in Advertising: A Review and Evaluation,” Current Issues

and Romch in Advertising, ed. James H. Leigh and Claude R. Martin, Jr., Ann
Arbor, MI.: University of Michigan.

155

Gary M., Metin N. Gurol, and Frederick A. Russ (1979), “Detecting and

Correcting Deceptive Adverting,” Journal of Consumer Research, (December),
23 7-246.

C.L. Kendall and Frederick A. Russ (1975), “Applications of Consumer
Information Preceding Research to Public Policy Issues,” Communications
Research, 2, 232-245.

Auchmutey, Jim (1985), “But Wait, There’s More!” Advertising Age, October 17.

Barbour, Fredric L. and David M. Gardner (1982), “Deceptive Advertising: A Practical
Approach to Measurement,” tom of Advertising, 11 (1), 21-30.

Barksdale, Hiram C., and William R. Darden (1972), “Consumer Attitudes Toward
Marketing and Consumerism,” Journg of Marketing, 36 (4), 28-35.

Barry, Thomas A. (1987), “The Development of the Hierarchy of Effects: An Historical

Perspective,” in Curront Issues and Research in Advertising, James H. Leigh and
Claude R. Martin, Jr., Ann Arbor: Division of Research, School of Business
Administration, University of Michigan, 251-296.

Bellman, Steven, Gerald Loshe and Eric Johnson, (1999) “Predictors of Online Buying

Behavior” Association for Commting Machinoty, Communications of the ACM,
42 (12) 32-38.

Beltramini, Richard and K. Evans (1985), “ Perceived Believability of Research Results
Information in Advertising, Journal of Advertising, 14(3), 18-24.

and Edwin R. Stafford (1993 ), “Comprehension and Perceived Believability of

Seals of Approval Information in Advertising,” Journal of Advertising, 22 (3), 3-
11.

Blatt, J ., L. Spencer, and S. Ward (1972), “ A Cognitive Developmental Study of
Children’s Reactions to Television Advertising,” in E. A. Rubinstein, G. A.
Comstock, and J. P. Murray (eds), Television and Sociﬂ Behavior, Vol 4,
Television in Day-to-Day Life: Patterns of Use. Washington, DC: Government
Printing Oﬂice, pp. 452-467.

Bliwas, Ron (2000), “TV Becomes Direct Response,” Advertising Age, 71 (8), 30 - 31.
Boush, David M., Marian Friestad, and Gregory M. Rose (1994), “Adolescent Skepticism

toward TV Advertising and Knowledge of Advertiser Tactics,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 21 (June), 165-175.

156

Bush, Alan J ., and Robert P. Bush (1990), “A Content Analysis of DRTV Advertising,”
Mf Direct Marketing, 4 (Winter), 6-12.

, Alan 1., Bush, Robert P. and P. Nitse (1993), “Beyond Response: Investigating
Consumer Perceptions That Drive Likability for Direct Response Advertising,” 7

Journal of Dirg Markging (1), 50-60.

Bmdweek (1999), “Automobile Dealers to Expand Ad Spending Stats,” Aug 23.

Braun, Harvey D. (1993), “Guess Who’s Watching,” Direct Mgkging, 56(3), 21-23.

Broadcasting and Cable (1996), Tolmmmunigtions Comooﬁtion and Mgolation
Ag of 1996 [URL: http://broadcastingandcable.com/html]

MAME (2000), “TV Picture Dims in 2001,” Sept 11.
Broadcasting and Cable (1999), “Spot TV,” Jan 4.

Calfee, J. E., and D. J. Ringold (1987), “Consumer Skepticism of Advertising: What Do
the Polls Show?”in Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 15, M. J.
Houston, ed., Provo, UT: Associations for Consumer Research.

Chaiken, Shelly (1987), “The Heuristic Model of Persuasion,” in Social Inﬂuence: The

Ontario Symmsium, Vol. 5, ed. Mark P. Zanna et al., I-Iillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 3-
39.

Chonko, L., and S. Hunt (1985), “Ethics and Marketing Management: An Empirical
Examination”, Journ_al of Business Research, 13 (Aug), 339-3 59.

Cleaver, Joanne (1984), “Direct Response TV Ads Turning Down the Volume,”
W, Apn'l 16-

Cohen, Dorothy (1972), “Surrogate Indicators and Deception in Advertising,” Journal of
Mgketing, 36 (JUN). 10-15.

Collins, Lynne. “Infomercial for Cholestaway Product Referred to Federal Trade
Commission,” Tho BBB Wob site, [URL: http://www.bbb.org/1984913771/
council/advertising/NADrelease.html].

(1996a), “Sealy Challenges Select Comfort’s Ads for Air Mattresses,” T_he
BBBWebsite, [URL: http://www.bbb.org/1984913771/council/advertising
/NADrelease.html].

(1996b), NAD Reviews Advertising for the Touch of M.A.G.I.C. (Animal

Training) System,”The BBBWebsite, [URL: http://www.bbb.org/ 1984913771/
council/advertising/NADrelease.html].

157

Consoli, John (1999), “The Most Bang for the Buck,” Brandweek, Sept. 20.

Coulter, Robin and Mary Beth Pinto (1995), Guilt Appeals'in Advertising: What are Their
Effects? Joumd of Appligd Psychology, 80(6), 697-706.

Dacin, Peter and Tom J. Brown (1997), “The Company and the Product: Corporate
Associations and Consumer Product Responses,” Journd of Marketing, 61 (1),
68-84.

D’Andrade, Roy (1987), “A Folk Model of the Mind,” in ultu M l in Lan e
god Thooght, ed. Dorothy Holland and Naomi Quinn, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 112-148.

Darian, Jean C. (1987), “In-Home Shopping: Are There Consumer Segments?” J_oo_111_al_of
Retailing (63) 3, 163 - 186.

DePaulo, Peter (1988), “Research on Deception in Marketing Communications: Its

Relevance to the Study of Nonverbal Behavior,” Joumg of Nonvorjoﬂ Behavior,
12 (4), 253-273.

and Bella M. DePaulo (1989), “Can Deception by Salespersons and Customers Be
Detected Through Nonverbal Behavioral Cues?” Joumﬂ of Applied Social
Psyohology, 19 (18), 1552-1577.

Dotroit News (2000), “One Internet Company Backs Out of Super Bowl Telecast,”
Jan 5.

(2000), “Companies Gamble Stocks on Internet Hype and Lose,” Aug 11.

Direct Marketing (1999), “1999 DMA Direct Response Agency Billings Report Shows
Continued Growth,” July 13.

(1998), “Study: Toll-free Numbers Used in Many TV Spots,”, Nov.

Dolliver, Mark (1999), “Truth or Consequences — or the Lack Thereof?” Adwgk, May
24.

Donthu, Naveen and David Gilliland (1996), “Observations: The Infomercial Shopper,”
looms! of Advertising Research, 36(2), 69-78.

Douglas, Torin (1997), “Response TV Needs More than a New Image to Convince
Skeptics,” Mgkoting Wook, 2(8), 17-18.

21118 Store Nows (1999), “DTC Advertising Expenditures Exceed $1.3 Billion in 1998,”
June 7.

158

Duncan, Calvin and Richard W. Olshavsky (1982), “External Search: The Role of
Consumer Beliefs,” Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (February), 32-43.

(1990) “Consumer Market Beliefs: A Review of the Literature and an Agenda for
Future Research,” Association for Consumer Research Proceedings, 729-736.

 

Durand, R., and Z. Lambert (1985), “Alienation and Criticisms of Advertising,” Journal of
Advertising, 14(3), 9-17.

Eagly, Alice and Shelly Chaiken (1984), “Cognitive Theories of Persuasion,” in Advances

in Experimental Socig Psychology, Vol 17, ed. Leonard Berkowitz, Orlando,
FL: Academic Press, 268-361.

Ebenkamp, Becky (1999), “Advertising for Dummies,” Brandweek, Sept. 13.

Edwards, Paul L. (1985), “Study Probes Consumers’ Attitudes on Direct Buying,”
Advertising Age, June 7.

Fishbein, Martin and lock Ajzen (1981), “Acceptance, Yielding, and Impact: Cognitive

Processes in Persuasion,” in Qogm'tive Responses to Porsuasion, ed. Richard E.
Petty et al., Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 339-360.

Fletcher, Winston (1999), “The Direct Response ‘Statistic’ Which Came From Outer
Space,” Marketing, Aug 26.

Folkes, Valerie S. (1988), “Recent Attribution Research in Consumer: A Review and New
Directions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (March), 549-565.

Forkan, Jim (1998), “Forecaster Bullish on Cable Ad Sales,” Multichannel News, June 29.

Ford, Gary T., Darlene B. Smith and John L. Swasy (1990), “Consumer Skepticism of
Advertising Claims: Testing Hypotheses from Economics of Information,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (March), 433-441.

__ Philip G. Kuehl, and Oscar Reksten, (1975), “Classifying and Measuring Deceptive
Advertising: An Experimental Approach,” in Americsn Ma_rketing Association
Com_bined Proceedings, ed. Edward M. Mazze, 439-487., Chicago: American
Marketing Association.

Friestad, Marian and Peter Wright (1994), “The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How

People Cope with Persuasion Attempts,” Journol of Consumer Research, 21
(June), 1-31.

159

(1995) “Persuasion Knowledge: Lay People’s and Researchers’ Beliefs

about the Psychology of Advertising,” loomal o fQonsomor Rosoaroh, 22
(June), 62- 74.

 

(1999), “Everyday Persuasion Knowledge,” chhology sod Marketing,
16 (2), 185-194.

 

Gardner, David M. (1975), “Deception in Advertising: A Conceptual Approach,” Journal
‘ of Mgskoting, 39 (January), 40-46.

Garland, Barbara C., and Martin Rhea (1988), “American Consumers: Proﬁle of An
Important Preference Segment,” Akron Business and Economic Review, 19 (2),
20-30.

Ghert, Kenneth C ., Thomas Ingram, and Vince Howe (1988), “Past Nonstore Patronage
as a Covariate,” Jopmg of Diroot Marketing, 2 (Spring), 29-39.

Goldman, Debra (1999), “Consumer Republic,” Adweek, Aug 16.

Grahame, R. and Richard Staelin (1996), A Model of Perceived Risk and Intended Risk-
handling Activity, Joumal of Consomg Romch, 21 (1), 119-135.

Grebb, Michael (1999), “Buying into Interactive Advertising,” Coolovision, Nov 15.

Haefner, James E. (1972), “The Perception of Deception in Television Advertising: An
Exploratory Investigation,” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Minnesota.

and Steven E. Permut (1974), “An Approach to the Evaluation of Deception in
Television Advertising,” loomal of Advertising, 3 (4), 40-45

Haller, Thomas (1973), “What Students Think of Advertising,” Journal of Advoﬂising
Research, 14(1), 33-43.

Harris, Richard J. (1977), “Comprehension of Pragmatic Implications in Advertising,”
Journal of Applied Psyohology, 62 (5), 603-608.

et al., (1981), “Training Consumers About Misleading Advertising: Transfer of
Training and Effects of Specialized Knowledge,” in Current Issues and Research
in Advertising, ed. James H. Leigh and Claude R. Martin, Jr., Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan.

Hatch, Denny (1999), “Making DRTV Work for You,” Target Marketing, 22 (9), 76-80.

160

Hunt, J ., J. Keman and R. Mizerski (1983), “Causal Inference in Consumer Response to
Inequitable Exchange: A Case of Deceptive Advertising”, in A. Tybout and C.
Bagozzi (eds), Adv in on Research, Ann Arbor, MI: Association
for Consumer Research.

and J. Keman ( 1991), “Consumer Reaction to Inequitable Exchange: The
Role of Causal lnferences,” Tho Journal of Social Psychology, 131(5), 685-696.

Hustad, T., and E. Pessemier (1973), “Mll the Real Consumer Activist Please Stand Up:
An Examination of Consumers’ Opinions About Marketing Practices”, Journal
of Mstkoting Romh, (Summer), 319-324.

James, E. Lincoln and Isabella Cunningham (1987), “A Proﬁle of Direct Marketing
Television Shoppers,” Journal of Direct Marketing, 1 (4), 12-23.

Kelley, Harold H. (1972), “Causal Schemata and the Attribution Process,” in Attribution:

Perceiving the Csugs of Bohsvior, eds. Edward E. Jones et al., Morristown, NJ:
General Learning Press, 151-174.

and John L. Michela (1980), “Attribution Theory and Research,” Annual Review of
Pachology, 31, 457-501. ‘

Kilboume, William E., and John C. Mowen (1986), “Image Advertising and Consumer

Attitudes Toward the Company: An Exploratory Study,” Akron Business and
Economic Review, 17 (1), 28-34.

Kinnani, Anna (1990), “The Effect of Perceive Advertising Costs on Brand Perceptions,:
Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (September), 160-171.

and Peter Wright (1989), “Money Talks: Perceived Advertising Expense and

Expected Product Quality,” Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (December),
344-353.

 

Kisielius, Jolita and Brian Stemthal (1984), “Detecting and Explaining Vividness Effects in
Attitudinal Judgment,” Journal of MsrketirgResearch. 21 (February), 54-64.

 

Korgaonkar, Pradeep K., Eric J. Karson, and Ishmael Akaah (1997), “Direct Marketing
Advertising: The Assents, the Dissents, and the Arnbivalents,” Journal of
Advertising Resmh, 37(5), 41-55.

Daularam Lund, and Barbara Price (1985), “A Structural Equations Approach

Toward Examination of Store Attitude and Store Patronage Behavior,” Journal
of Retailing, 61 (Summer), 39-60.

161

Kuehl, Philip G. and Robert F. Dyer (1977), “Applications of the Normative Belief
Technique for Measuring the Effectiveness of Deceptive and Corrective
Advertisements,’ in Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 4, ed. William
Perrault, Jr., Atlanta: Association for Consumer Research, 204-212..

Larkin, E. F. (1977), “A Factor Analysis of College Student Attitudes Toward
Advertising,” Journal of Advertising, 6 (2), 42-46.

Laskey, Henry, Richard J. Fox, and Melvin R. Crask (1994), “Investigating the Impact of
Executional Style on Television Commercial Effectiveness,” Journal of
Advertising Research, (N member/December), 9-16.

Lenihan, Rob (2000), “But Wait, There’s More . . .” CNNﬁ1 Sept. 1
[http://cnnﬁ1.cnn.com/2000/09/0 l/life/q_asseenontv/]

 

Lynch, John G., Jr., and Thomas K. Srull (1982), “Memory and Attentional Factors in
Consumer Choice: Concepts and Research Methods,” .10qu of Consomer
Reﬂch, 9 (June), 18-37.

Lutz, Richard (1985), “Affective and Cognitive Antecedents of Attitude Toward the Ad:
A Conceptual Framework,” in P cholo 'cal Proce ses and A v rtisin Effects:
Thoog, Research, and Applications, Linda F. Alwitt and Andrew A. Mitchell,
eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Mackenzie, Scot B., Richard Lutz and George E. Belch (1986), “The Role of Attitude
Toward Advertising as a Mediator of Advertising Effectiveness: A Test of
Competing Explanations,” Journal of Marketing Research, 23 (2), 130- 43.

Maloney, John C. (1962), “Curiosity and Disbelief in Advertising,” Journal of Advertising
Research, 2 (June), 2-8.

(1963), “Is Advertising Believability Really Important,” Journal of nging, 27
(Oct) 1-8.

McCorkle, Denny E. (1990), “The Role of Perceived Risk in Mail Order Catalog
Shopping,” Joumsl of Dirg Mstkoting 4 (Autumn), 42-57.

McGuire William J. (1964), “Inducing Resistance to Persuasion: Some Contemporary
Approaches,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed. Leonard
Berkowitz, New York: Academic Press, 192-229.

McLaughlin, Rachel (1998), “Is Cable TV Right for You,” Target Marketing, 21 (12),
14.

162

Miller-Rosenblum, Trudi (1996), “Direct Response Shines on TV,” mud, May 18,
63-64.

Milne, George R., and Andrew J. Rohm (2000), “Consumer Privacy and Name Removal
Across Direct Marketing Channels: Exploring Opt-in and Opt-out Alternatives,”
f bli P li k 'n 19(2), 238-249.

Mitchell, Andrew A. ( 1986), “The Eﬁ’ect of Verbal and Visual Components of
Advertisement on Brand Attitudes and Attitude Toward the Advertisement,”
Joomg of Qonotmer Researoh, 13 (June), 12-24.

Mittal, Banwari (1994), “Public Assessment of TV Advertising: Faint Praise and Harsh
Criticism,” Journal of Advertising Rosegch, (January/February), 35-53.

Montgomery, Lorri (1999), “Television: The New Drug Dealer,” Insidebiz.com
[http://www.insidebizcom/hamtonroadslcurrents/current 12 1399a.htm].

Morrow, Kathleen and Clint B. Tankersley (1994), “An Exploratory Study of Consumer
Usage and Satisfaction with 800 and 900 Numbers,” Journal of Direct
Marketing, 8(4), 51-58.

Muehling, Darrel (1987), “An Investigation of Factors Underlying Attitude-toward-
Advertising-in-General,” Journal of Advor_t_ising l6 (1), 32-40.

( 1997), “Fine Print in Television Advertising: Views From the Top,” Journal of
Advgtising, 26 (3), 1-15.

Muncy, J. A., and S. J. Vitell (1992), “Ethical Beliefs of the Final Consumer,” Journal of
Businoss Research, 24, 297-311.

Myers-Levy, Joan and Prashant Malaviya (1999), “Consumers’ Processing of Persuasive
Advertisements: All Integrative Framework of Persuasion Theories,” Journal of
Msrketing, 63, 45-60.

The National Consumers League (1999), “Crarnming is Down, But Not Out,” National
Fraud lnforrnation Center Web sits [URL: http://www.fraud.org/].

 

Nelson, Phillip (1974), “Advertising As Information,” Journal of Political Economy, 83
(July/August), 729-754.

Newell, Stephan J ., Ronald Goldsmith, and Edgar J. Banzhaf (1998), “The Effect of

Misleading Environmental Claims on Consumer Perceptions of Advertisements,”
Journal of MaLketing Theoty and Practice, 6 (2), 48-60.

163

Nowak, Glen (1992), “TV Viewer Characteristics and ‘Results Beyond Response’,”
Joorng of Direct Mgkging 6 (2), 18-31.

and Joseph Phelps (1995), “Direct Marketing and the Use of Individual-Level
Consumer Information: Determining How and When ‘Privacy’ Matters,” Journal

of Direct Marketing, 9 (3), 46-61.

O’Leary, Noreen (2000), “Power to the People,” Adweek, Jan 10.

 

O’Leary, Timothy (1998), “The Future of the Industry-Hybrid DRTV,” Brandweek, June
29.

Olson, Jerry C. and Phillip A. Dover (1978), “Cognitive Effects of Deceptive
Advertising,” Jopmﬂ of Markging Romch, 15 (February), 29-38.

OnHealth Magazine (2000), “Surge in Drug Advertising Boosts Pharmaceutical Sales,”
OnHegth Magazine, [http://onhealth.webmd.com/conditions/briefs/wire/
item/101219.asp].

O’Mahony, Sheila and Oliver Meenaghan (1998), The Impact of Celebrity Endorsements
on Consumers, Irish Msskging Review, Dublin, 10(2) 15-24.

Park, C. Whan, and W. Parker Lessig (1981), “Familiarity and Its Impact on Consumer
Decision Biases and Heuristics,” Journal of Consumer Research, 8 (September),
223-230.

Petty, Richard E. and John T. Caccioppo (1986), “The Elaboration Likelihood Model of

Persuasion,” in Advances in Em’mental Social Pachology, Volume 19, ed.
Leonard Berkowitz, New York: Academic Press, 123-205.

Phelps, Joseph, William Gonzenbach, and Edward Johnson (1994), “Press Coverage and
Public Perception of Direct Marketing and Consumer Privacy,” Journal of Direct
Marketing, 8, 45 - 56.

Pollay, Richard W. (1986), “The Distorted Mirror: Reﬂections on the Unintended
‘ Consequences of Advertising,” Journal of Marketing, 50(2), 18-36.

and Katherine Gallagher (1990), “Advertising and Cultural Values: Reﬂections in
the Distorted Mirror,” International Journ_al of Advertising, 9, 359-3 72 '

and Banwari Mittal (1993), “Here’s the Beef: Factors, Determinants, and Segments
in Consumer Criticism of Advertising,” Journal of Marketing, 57 (July), 99-114.

164

Rao, C. P. (1974), “Deceptive Advertising: Consumer Concern and Evaluative Belief,” A

paper presented at the Soothorn Markging Association Conference, Atlanta,
GA.

Reid, Leonard N. , and Lawrence C. Soley, (19820, “Generalized and Personalized
Attitudes Toward Advertising’s Social and Economic Eﬂ‘ects, Joumg of

Advertising, 11(3), 3-7.

Resnick, Alan and Bruce L. Stern (1977), “An Analysis of Information Content in
Television Advertising,” Joomal of Mstkging, 41 (1), 50-53.

Rogers, Jean Li (1989), “Consumer Response to Advertising Mail,” Journal of Advertising
Rosogch, 29(6), 18-25. 1

(1996), “Mail Advertising and Consumer Behavior,” Psychology & Marketing, 13
(2), 211-234.

Rom Report (1998), “Understanding the Year Ahead: Eight Trends to Know for
1998,”[URL: http:l/www.roper.com/pulse/sample98.html].

Roselius, Ted ( 1979), “Consumer Rankings of Risk Reducing Methods,” Journal of
Markging 35 (January), 56-63.

Rosenberg, Larry, and Elizabeth l-Iirschman (1980), “Retailing Without Stores,” Haggard
Business Review, 58(4), 103-112.

Rossiter, John R., and Thomas S. Robertson (1974), “Children and Commercial

Persuasion: An Attribution Theory Analysis,” Journal of Consqu Resrﬂch, 1
(June), 13-20.

and Larry Percy (1980), “Attitude Change Through Visual Imagery in
Advertising,” Journg of Advertising, 9(2), 10-16.

Rotfeld, Herbert J. and Kim B. Rotzoll (1980), “Is Advertising Puffery Believed?” Journal
of Advertising, 9(3), 16-20, 45.

Russo, J. Edward, Barbara L. Metcalf and Debra Stephens (1981), “Identifying

Misleading Advertising,” Joumﬂ of Consumer Research, 8 (September), 119-
131.

Settle, Robert B. and Linda L. Golden, (1974), “Attribution Theory and Advertiser
Credibility,” Joumsl of Morheting Research, 11 (May), 181-185.

165

Schutz, Howard and Marianne Casey (1981), “Consumers Perceptions of Advertising as
Misleading,” Joumg of Consomor Affg'rs, 15, 340-357.

Shevitz, Mark (1999), “Promotion and the Cynical Consumer,” Brgdwook, Mar 29.

Shim, Soyeon, and Mary F. Drake (1990), “Consumer Intention to Utilize Electronic
Shopping: The Fishbein Behavioral Intention Model, Jouool of Direct
Mstkging, 4 (Summer), 22-33.

Shimp, Terrence (1976), “Methods of Commercial Presentation Employed by National
Television Advertisers,” Journ_al of Adveotising 5 (4), 30—36.

Smith, Robert E. and William R. Swinyard (1988), “Cognitive Response to Advertising
and Trial: Belief Strength, Belief Conﬁdence and Product Curiosity,” Joumﬂ of

Advertising, 17(3), 3-14.

Smith, Timothy and Thomas King (1993 ), “Hardsell: Madison Avenue, Slow to Grasp
Interactivity, Could be Left Behind,” Wall Street Joumd, December 7.

Soley, Lawrence C., and Leonard N. Reid (1983), “Satisfaction with the Informational
Value of Magazine and Television Advertising,” Joomal of Advﬂising 12 (3),
27-3 1.

Stanton, John L. and Jefﬁ'ey Burke (1998), “Comparative Effectiveness of Executional
Elements in TV Advertising: 15- versus 30-Second Commercials,” Journal of

Advertising Remoh, 38(6), 7-14.

Stayman, Douglas M., Dana L. Alden and Karen H. Smith (1992), “Some Effects of
Schematic Processing on Consumer Expectations and Disconﬁrmation

Judgments,” Joornal of Conosmg Romh, 19 (September), 240-255.

Stoltman, Jeffrey J. (1991), “Advertising Effectiveness: The Role of Advertising
Schemas,” in Maskging Thooty sod Appliootions, Volume 2, eds. Terry L.

Childers et al., Chicago, IL: AMA Winter Educators’ Conference.

Storholm, Gordon and Hershey Friedman (1989), “Perceived Common Myths and
Unethical Practices Among Direct Marketing Professionals,” Joomg of Business
Ethics, 8, 975-979.

Surlin, Stuart H. (1973), “A Critique of An Approach to the Evaluation of Deception in
Television Advertising,” Joornd of Advortising, 3 (4), 44-45.

Tedesco, Richard (2000), “Surfers Turn Off TV,” Broadcasting and Cable, February 21.

166

Tixier, Daniel (1987), “The Advent of Upstream Direct Marketing and the Question of
Customer Loyalty,” Journal of Direct Marketing 4 (Winter). 57-64.

Triff, M., D. B. Benningﬁeld and J. H. Murphy (1987), “Advertising Ethics: A Study of
Public Attitudes and Perceptions,” in Prmmgs of the American Academy of
Advertising, Florence Feasley ed., Provo, UT: American Academy of
Advertising.

Triplett, Tim (1994) “Big Names Crowd the Infomercial Airwaves,” Marketing News,
July 28.

Tellis, Gerald, Rajesh H. Chandy and Pattana Thaivanich (2000), “Which Ad Works,
When, Where, and How Often? Modeling the Effects of Direct Television
Advertising,” J ournal of Mgketing Research, 37 (February), 32-46.

2000 Emnomic Impact: US. Dug Mgkging Todg, April 6, 2000; http://www.the-
dma.org/library/publications/libres-ecoimpact2.shtml.

Vanden Bergh, Bruce G., and E. Lincoln James (1990), “An Information Content
Comparison of Magazine Ads Across a Response Continuum from Direct
Response to Institutional Advertising,” Journal of Advertising, 19(2), 23-29.

Lawrence C. Soley and Leonard N. Reid (1981), “Factor Study of Dimensions of
Advertiser Credibility,” Wily, Winter, 629-632.

Voight, Joan (2000), “The Consumer Rebellion,” Adweek, Jan 10.

Ward, 8., and Thomas S. Robertson (1972), “Adolescent Attitudes toward Television
Advertising: Preliminary Findings,” in E.A. Rubinstein, G. A. Comstock, and J.
P. Murray (eds), Television ad Socig Bohavior. Vol 4, Television in Day-to-
Day Life: Patterns of Use. Washington, DC: Government Printing Ofﬁce, 432-
45 1 .

(1972), “Family and Media Inﬂuences on Adolescent Consumer Learning, in Ibid.,
554-567.

Wiegold, Michael, Suzie Flusser, and Mary Ann Ferguson (1992), “Direct Response
Advertising: The Contributions of Price, Information, Artwork, and Individual
Differences to Purchase Consideration,” Journal of Direct Marketing 6 (2), 32-
39.

Whitlark, David B., Michael Geurts, and Michael Swanson (1993 ), “New Product
Forecasting With a Purchase Intention Survey,” The Joumoalmf Business

Forming Methﬂs o Systems, 12(3), 18-26.

 

167

Wise, Christy (1998), “Mortgage Media,” Moggsge Banking, Aug 4.

Wright, Peter (1973 ), “The Cognitive Processes Mediating Acceptance of Advertising,”
MW 10 (FebmafY). 53-62.

(1975), “Factors Affecting Cognitive Resistance to Advertising,” Journal of
onsumer Research, 2 (June), 1-9.

(1980), “Message-Evoked Thoughts: Persuasion Research Using Thought
Verbalizations,” looms! of Consu_n1er Research, 7 (September), 151-175.

(1985), “Schemer Schema: Consumers’ Intuitive Theories about Marketers’

Inﬂuence Tactics,” in Advghoos in Comer Research, 13, ed. Richard J. Lutz,
Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 1-3.

and Peter D. Rip (1981), “Retrospective Reports on the Causes of Decisions,”
Joumﬂ of Persowity sod Sooial Psychology, 40 (April), 601-614.

Zanot, E. (1981), “Public Attitude Toward Advertising,” in Advertising in a New Age, ed.
Keith Hunt, Columbia, SC: American Academy of Advertising.

Zeithaml, Valarie A. (1988), “Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A

Means-End Model and Synthesis of Evidence,” umal f M k in 52 (July),
2-22.

Zuckerman and Driver (1985), “Telling Lies: Verbal and Nonverbal Correlates of

Deception,” in AW. Siegrnan and S. Feldstein (eds), MulticMel Intogtations
of Nonverbal Behavior, Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum, 129-147.

 

Arens, William, and Courtland L. Bovee (1994), Contemporag Advertising, Burr Ridge,
IL: Irwin.

Babble, Earl (1990), Survg Rosearch Methods, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.

Bauer, Raymond A., and Stephen A. Greyser (1968), Advertisig in America The
Consumer Viow, Boston, MA: Division of Research, Harvard University.

Bern, D. J. (1970), Beliefs Attitudes and Human Affairs, Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

 

168

Brady, Frank and John Angel Vasquez (1996) Dug Response Advertising: The
Aothoritative Guide, Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Business Books.

Brown, Roger (1965), Social Pachology, New York: The Free Press.

Comstock, George, Steven Chatfee, Nathan Katzman, Maxwell McCombs, and Donald
Roberts (1978), Tolovision ad Homa Behavior, New York: Columbia

University Press.

Eagley, Alice H. and Shelly Chaiken (1993), The Pachology of Aniade e,s Orlando, FL:
Harcourt Brace J ovanovrch

Eicoff, Alvin (1988), Direct Markging Through Broadcast Modia: TV, Radio, Cable,

InfomerciaJs, Homo Shopping ad Moro, Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Publishing
Group.

(1995), Direct Marketing Through Broadcast Media: TV, Radio Cable

Infomacials, Home Shopping ad More, 2"“ edition, Lincolnwood, IL: NTC
Publishing Group.

 

English, Horace B., and Ava Champney English (1958), Comprohasivo Digioom of
Psyohologia and Psyohiatrio Terms, New York: David McKay Co., Inc.

Fishbein, Martin and Icek Ajzen (1975), Belief Attitude Intention and Behavior: An
Introdugion to Thoog ad Rosgh, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Fox, Stephen (1984), Tho Mirror Makers, New York: William Morrow and Co., Inc.

 

Gossage, Howard Luck (1986), “Is Advertising Worth Saving?” in Is There Any Hope for
Advortising?, Howard Luck Gossage, Kim Rotzoll, Jarlath Graham, and
Barrows Mussey, eds. Urbana, IL: University of Chicago Press,

Hanna, Nessim, and Richard Wozniak (2001), Consumer Behavior: An Applied Approach,
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Heider, F. (1958), The Pachology of Interpersonal Relations, New York: John Wiley &
Sons

Horsley-Smith, George (1954), Motivation Research in Advertising and Maketing, New
York: McGraw-I-Iill, Inc.

Hovland, Carl 1., Irving L. Janis, and Harold H. Kelley (1953), Communication and

Persuasion: Psychological Studies of Opinion Change, New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.

169

Kendler, H. H. (1968), Baic Psyohology, 2'" edition, New York: Appleton-Century-
Crofts.

Kerlinger, Fred N. (1986), Eoondations of Behavioral Reﬂch, 3" edition, Chicago, IL:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

Lindsay, Peter H., and Donald A. Norman (1972), Homan Information Processing: An
Introdua'on to Psyohology, New York, NY: Academic Press.

Lindzey, Gardner, and Elliot Aronson. (1982), Handbook of Socig Psychology, 3"
edition, Volume 1, New York, NY: Random House.

Norusis, Marija J. (1993), SPSS for Windows; ProfossionaJ Statistics, Roloao 6.0.,
Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.

Nunnally, Jum C. (1967), Pgohomgric Thaty. McGraw-Hill: New York.

Peter, J. Paul, and Jerry C. Olson (1999), Consumer Behavior and Marketing Strategy,
Homewood, IL: Irwin McGraw Hill.

Petty, Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo (1986) WWW New
York: Springer-Verlag.

Preston, Ivan L. (1975), The Great American Blow-up: Puffe_ry in Advertising and Selling,
Madison,le The University of Wisconsin Press.

(1994), The Tangled Web Th9: Wave: Truth, Falsity, and Advertisers,

Madison,le the University of Wisconsin Press.

Richards, JefI. (1990), D iveA v isin :Beh vi u of L
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rotzoll, Kim B., James E. Haefner, and Steven R. Hall (1996), Advertising in
Contomporgy Socioty: Persmivos Toward Undorstanding, 3" edition, Urbana,

IL: University of Illinois Press.

Russell, J. T., and W. R. Lane (1993), Kleppner’s Advertising Procedure, 11" edition,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Saslow, Carol (1982), Basic Resoach Methods, New York: Random House.

Solomon, Michael R. (1994), Consumer Behavior, 2"d Edition. Needham Heights, MA:
Paramount Publishing.

170

Stewart, David, and David Furse (1986), Eﬁ’gaive Television Advertising, Lexington,
KY: D.C. Heath and Co.

Sutherland, Max (1993), A v rti in d he Min of the nsumer: What Worlos. Wlmt
Doesn’t and Why, St Leonards, Australia: Allen and Unwyn, Ltd.

Throckmorten, Joan (1996), Dissavering Dirﬂ Markaing,
[http:l/www.demographics.com/Publications/MT/961 1_Mt/961 1M51.HTM].

Wells, William, John Burnett and Sandra Moriarty (1998), Advertising Principles and
Practice, 4" Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

 

Wimmer, Roger D., and Joseph R. Dominick (1991), Mass Media Reseach: An
Introductioh, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.

Witek, John (1981), Rospona Telovision: Combat Advaising of the 19805, Chicago, IL:

Crain Books

Wright, John, Willis L. Winter, Jr., and Sherilyn Zeigler (1982), Advogising, 5" edition,
New York: McGraw-Hill.

Wunderrnan, Lester (1996), Being Direct: Direct Marketing That Works. Holbrook, MA:
Adams Media Corp.

171