Toward a Common Understanding of Video Commercials and Narrative Advertisements

Home , Clio Awards, Rachel Dratch, Super Bowl LIV

TOWARD A COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF VIDEO COMMERCIALS AND NARRATIVE ADVERTISEMENTS

------

A Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of Clemson University

------

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts Communication, Technology, and Society

------

by Raine Templeton Riley May 2021

------

Accepted by: Dr. Andrew Pyle, Committee Chair Dr. Erin Ash Dr. Jordan Morehouse

Abstract

Video commercials, or television advertisements, have gained a lot of attention in scholarship since the first television advertisement aired in 1941. In recent years, scholars have examined advertisements using the lens of narrative persuasion and as entertainment features on their own. This study builds on previous literature by identifying types of advertisements – non-narrative and narrative – and further describes narrative advertisements in terms of structural aspects and appeal types using exemplars. A set of nearly 200 unique award-winning and otherwise popular advertisements are categorized by Advertisement Type based on prior works in advertising as well as Primary and

Secondary Appeal Types that emerged during analysis. Ads that had poor responses are categorized by Ad Type and in terms of their Missteps. The Narrative Advertisement

Continuum, which positions non-narrative and narrative advertisements on a sliding scale, is proposed. This study is further consolidated into an easy-to-navigate Narrative

Advertising Guide with the intent to serve as a resource grounded in scholarship for marketing and advertising practitioners.

Dedication

To my dear (still new) husband, Tanner, who carried me when I couldn't carry myself, laughed, celebrated, and cried with me, encouraged me to keep going, and reminded me who I am and whose I am all while navigating law school, the Bar Exam, a global pandemic, and the first year of marriage. Thank you for believing in me.

To my parents, who told me years ago that I should go to graduate school and to

whom I did not listen, who planned and hosted the most beautiful wedding for me, and

who constantly inspire me to be good fruit. Thank you for loving me so fiercely.

To MaMa and Daddy Bob who are always so supportive, loving, and who inspire

me to be a million times better than the person I am.

To my siblings who I apparently never tell anything important to – guys, I’m

getting my Master’s. When I get this printed, I’ll show you what’s in it.

To my “new” family, the Riley’s, who took me on as their own and who bring

such joy and meaning to my life. And for MaMa, who made sure we were always full of

food and scripture and anything else she thought we might like.

To Grace, Savannah, Camille, Daniel, Andrew, Will, and your s/o’s who made

planning a wedding in the midst of grad school a thing of dreams.

To Love Fest.

To everyone else who has prayed for me, asked how things are going, or just let

me rant – thank you. You have no idea how much these moments have meant.

Finally, to the version of me who forgets to believe in herself. Look at what

you’ve done! With prayer, community, and a little faith so much is possible.

iii

Acknowledgements

I would first like to extend my deepest gratitude to my committee chair and mentor, Dr. Andrew Pyle, who took me on as an advisee with very little direction. Your patience and willingness to brainstorm with me encouraged me more than I can say. Your belief in me and in my ideas made this project into what it is today, and I am so grateful.

I would also like to thank Dr. Erin Ash and Dr. Jordan Morehouse for coming along side me for this journey of a thesis project in all its iterations. I greatly appreciate the time you spent with me in and outside of this project, asking difficult questions and urging me to think deeper and further than I thought I could. Much of my inspiration has come from your own work. You both bring such wisdom and nuance to Communication scholarship and having you on my committee has been an absolute honor.

I would be remiss not to acknowledge the support of the Clemson University

Department of Communication. Thank you for taking a chance on me two years ago. I am grateful to my professors who have pointed me in the right direction along the way and to the other invaluable members of the department with whom I have had the pleasure of working outside of the classroom.

I acknowledge the work of scholars who came before me who cared as much about commercials and narrative as I do. This work would not have been possible without your contributions.

Finally, I must express my sincerest gratitude to my friends and family whose support has meant everything to me. I appreciate the time and energy spent in talking through ideas with me and the time many of you have spent reading over my work. In

particular, I acknowledge the insight of Dr. Paul Shotsberger of Southern Wesleyan

University who has discussed these ideas with me and who read over an early draft of my thesis, Miss Donna Findley who has shared her own insight in marketing and advertising,

and my husband, Tanner Riley who has listened to my ideas and read through many

versions of this project Thank you.

Table of Contents

Page

Title Page………………………………………………………………………………i

Abstract………………………………………………………………………………..ii

Dedication…………………………………………………………………………….iii

Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………...iv

List of Tables and Figures…………………………………………………………..viii

Chapter

1. Dream, Jump, Remember………………………………….………….1

2. A Very Brief History of the Television Advertisement………….…...6

Narrative Advertisements…………………………………….7

3. Defining Narrative Ads………………………………………….…....9

4. Persuasiveness of Narrative Advertisements………………….…….14

Narrative and Expected Outcomes………………………….14

5. This Study: Commercials That Did it Right………………………...20

Criteria………………………………………………………21 Categories…………………………………………………...25

6. This Study: Commercials that Did it Wrong?...... 37

7. Conclusion…………………………………………………………..40

8. References…………………………………………………………..44

9. Footnotes……………………………………………………………58

10. Appendices…………………………………………………………..62

A: Results Tables…………………………………………….63

vi Table of Contents (continued)

Page

B: Commercials Examined…………………………………..65 C: Globular Venn Diagram: Mind-Mapping Phase………….xx

11. Narrative Advertisement Guide……………………………………..xx

vii List of Tables and Figures

Table Page

1 Advertising Definitions…………………………………………………….10

2 Drama Scale………………………………………………………………..11

3 Criteria: Narrative Feature…………………………………………………23

4 Categories: Primary Appeal Types..……………………………………….29

5 Categories: Secondary Appeal Types……………………………………...36

Figure Page

1 Narrative Advertising Continuum...……………………………………….12

viii

Dream, Jump, Remember

A young wrestler with no legs took on an opponent with two, a homecoming

queen made a critical tackle as linebacker, a Liberian refugee joined the MLS as the

youngest-ever player to compete in the organization, and a girl from Compton competed

on the world’s biggest stage to become one of the greatest athletes of our time. Love

them or hate them, Nike did something amazing with its 2018 “Dream Crazy” campaign.

The original two-minute mini-film featured incredible athletes “who are household names

and those who should be” (Nike, n.d.) and won Nike the 2019 Outstanding Commercial

Creative Arts Emmy, beating out Apple, Amazon, and Sandy Hook Promise (Diaz, 2019;

Haithman & Blyth, 2019). The ad, narrated by NFL deviant Colin Kaepernick, urged

viewers not to ask if their dreams are crazy, but rather to “ask if they’re crazy enough”

(Acord, 2018). Timed to kick off the 2018/19 NFL season, the celebration of the 30th

anniversary of Nike’s “Just Do It” tagline sparked conversations among those in support

and those in opposition (Beer, 2019).

The response was “swift and severe” (Chadwick & Zipp, 2018, para. 4). Some

people applauded, flooding the internet with images and videos of themselves and

celebrities sporting Nike apparel. Others scoffed, sharing images of Nike shoes and

apparel aflame alongside the hashtags #NikeBoycott, #BoycottNike, and

#BurnYourNikes (Chadwick & Zipp, 2018; Cosentino, 2019; Thomas, 2018). While the

content of the advertisement was not explicitly polarizing, the spokesperson was. Colin

Kaepernick, and subsequently Nike’s endorsement, re-opened the discourse on some of

“America’s biggest fault lines – race, patriotism, sports, and business” and elicited strong

emotional responses from viewers (Beer, 2019, para. 3). Nike broke post and media

coverage records, receiving nearly $43 million in media exposure in the first 24 hours

and nearly $220 million worth of media exposure in the first week (Kish, 2018; Novy-

Williams, 2018). Two days following the release of the ad, Nike’s stock plummeted 3.2%

before hitting an all-time high on September 21 (Yahoo! Finance, n.d.). By the end of the

year, Nike had claimed billions in brand value increase and a 31% boost in sales (Beer,

2019; Burke & Klingemann, 2019; Hector, 2019; LLLLITL, 2019; Thomas, 2018). The

advertisement and overall campaign worked well for the brand and positioned Nike as a

corporate ally for social justice.

About 18 months prior, in April of 2017, another major corporation attempted a

similar feat, releasing a commercial with a far more explicit appeal to emotion and,

specifically, social justice. The two-and-a-half-minute documentary-style advertisement

presented a protest advocating for “peace.” The protest featured people of different ages,

cultural backgrounds, and sexualities and followed the journey of a musician,

photographer, and model as they joined in the march. The commercial climaxed when the

protesters reached a line of police officers. The model grabbed an ice-cold soda and handed it to one of the officers who accepted and took a sip. The protesters celebrated with hugs and high-fives, the officer gave a grin, and the protesters walked off in unity as the words “Live Bolder. Live Louder.” were displayed at the bottom of the screen. The major corporation was Pepsi, the model none other than Kendall Jenner, and the commercial the infamous “Jump In” installment to PepsiCo’s “Live for Now – Moments” campaign.

Like “Dream Crazy,” this advertisement reaped a lot of publicity. Unfortunately for PepsiCo (Pepsi), though, the publicity was almost entirely negative. In fact, the responses were so overwhelming that the ad was removed within 24 hours of its release and all subsequent campaign plans were put on hold (Fordyce, 2018; Liffreing, 2017;

Smith, 2017; Tillman, n.d.). Cries of insensitivity and “tone-deafness” echoed throughout social media as people posted violent images of (mainly Black) protesters being brutalized by (mainly White) police officers with captions like “Kendall please! Give him a Pepsi!” (Dozé, 2019; Fordyce, 2018; Liffreing, 2017). Bernice King, youngest daughter of the late Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., joined the conversation by posting a photo of her father being pushed by a White police officer during a peaceful protest with the caption “If only Daddy would have known about the power of #Pepsi.” (Dozé, 2019;

Fordyce, 2018; Smith, 2017; Tillman, n.d.). The long-standing satirical television show

Saturday Night Live even created a sketch mocking the advertisement’s blatant insensitivity. Pepsi’s advertisement incited a Public Relations crisis to which its

marketing and PR teams had to respond with care and haste. While the market and

monetary effects on Pepsi were not as severe as those on Nike following their advertisement with Colin Kaepernick, the effects on millennials’ purchase considerations and brand perception, strong indicators of potential sales revenues, dropped 3% immediately following the ad and have continued to drop, maintaining a low Purchase

Consideration of only 23% (Tillman, n.d.).

More recently, in February 2020, Google took the world by storm with their

Super Bowl LIV advertisement, “Loretta.” The commercial was aesthetically simple,

3 utilizing only a white backdrop, black text, and the occasional pop of color and photos. It opened on a white screen with an empty search bar and blinking cursor, then zoomed out to reveal that the search bar was that of Google. The viewer saw evidence of someone typing the words “how to not forget” into the bar, which yielded a result stating the importance of repeating the details one wants to remember. Then the voice of an elderly man calling for his Google Assistant (“Hey Google”) broke in and the viewer heard the man asking it to “show me photos of me and Loretta.” Google Assistant rang its short tune and responded via chat box ‘here are your photos.’ Then a photo appeared of an older man with big-framed glasses, presumably our main character, hugging a woman, seemingly his wife Loretta, grinning at the camera from inside of a wood-paneled home.

The image switched to a sepia-tinged photo with the same but much younger couple smiling at the camera wearing white coats and carrying travel bags; the woman donning a bright red bow around her neck and the man sporting a robust mustache. The man chuckled and said “Remember, Loretta hated my mustache!” and chuckled again. The

Google Assistant confirmed with a chime that it would remember. As the commercial continued, the viewer saw the searches that the man posed (“that little town off the coast of Juneau”), photos and videos of the couple and their family through the years, their favorite movie (Casablanca), as well as the list of things he asked Google to remember

(“Loretta used to hum showtunes,” “Loretta used to say tickled pink,” “Loretta always said, don’t miss me too much, and get out of the dang house”). Finally, the man called on

Google and requested that it remember “I’m the luckiest man in the world.” The commercial concluded with the sounds of the man taking his dog out for a walk as a plain

4 white screen revealed the sentence “A little help with the little things,” followed by the classic Google “G” logo.

“Loretta” was a surprising separation from what has mostly become the norm of

Super Bowl commercials – cinematic quality, comedy, and celebrities (Oster, 2020;

Schad, 2020). Comedian Kumail Nanjiani expressed what was likely the reaction of many Super Bowl viewers: “2020. The year I cried at a google commercial” (@kumailn,

2020). A quick glance at Twitter showed that the response to Google’s ad was immediate and immense. Regular Joes and celebrities alike were Tweeting, sharing videos, memes, and gifs, and talking about “Loretta.” USA Today’s Ad Meter (2020) ranked “Loretta” number three out of all of the Super Bowl LIV spots. While not all of the responses to

Google’s “Loretta” were positive – some reviews called the ad “creepy” and chastised the tech company for collecting and storing personal data (see Dowd, 2020; Lyons, 2020;

Renstrom, 2020) – the overwhelming emotional response from viewers is worth examination.

This detailed study of narrative advertisements serves a two-fold purpose. First, this study aims to fill a gap in advertising literature by providing a comprehensive explanation of narrative versus non-narrative advertisements as well as by bolstering understanding of narrative advertisement types by providing exemplars of each.

Advertising scholarship has been functioning without a definitive common language, which this study intends to provide. Second, this study seeks to identify narrative features and appeal types utilized in award-winning and popular commercials so practitioners in the fields of marketing, advertising, and public relations may create and produce narrative

5 advertisements with greater success in terms of recollection and buzz. In all, this analysis is meant to serve as a basis for future studies in advertising and as a resource grounded in scholarship for practitioners.

A Very Brief History of the Television Advertisement

Television commercials have been around since 1941 when the Federal

Communications Commission (FCC) legalized advertising on a handful of networks. The official first television ad, or commercial, ran on NBC and was a single, shaky shot of a simplified map of the USA, then only 48 states, featuring a Bulova brand clock face in the center displaying the time and a voiceover announcing, “America runs on Bulova”

(Poggi, 2016). There were many skeptics following the announcement by the FCC that television advertisements were to be legal. Even Advertising Age (now Ad Age), the premier global media brand that has been publishing analyses on marketing and media since 1930, had little faith in the future of television advertisements (Ad Age, 1941).

Nearly 80 years later, though, the television advertisement industry has grown immensely as commercials can be considered cultural artifacts or even entertainment features in and of themselves (Alsop, 1985; Esslin, 1979; McAllister & Galindo-Ramirez, 2017;

McAllister, 1999). In 1941, the first commercial ever cost Bulova about $4, or about

$71.50 in 2021. In 2020, a typical 30-second commercial spot averaged around $115,000, a Super Bowl spot of the same length could cost as much as $5.6 million, and overall spending for television advertising in North America amounted to nearly $63 billion

(Main, 2021).

As television advertising evolved through the 20th century, a new type of advertisement, the narrative advertisement, was introduced. Narrative has been described as a basic tenet of human communication and the most important way by which human experiences are made meaningful (see Bruner, 1986; 2004; Polkinghorne, 1988; 1991;

Ricœur et al., 1984; Schneider et al., 2004; Shankar et al., 2001). Slater and Rouner described narrative as an account of social information, or “the unfolding of human relations and events” (Slater & Rouner, 2002, p. 179). Narratives help people achieve closure (Kerby, 1991), make sense of events and experiences (Escalas, 2004a), and gain perspective to make evaluations and decisions (Bruner, 1990). Though scholars have differing opinions on the specific features that constitute a narrative, they generally agree that narrative structure consists of temporality and causality (Escalas, 1998; Shankar et al., 2001). Many scholars also conclude that narratives routinely involve some form of character and conflict (Green, Melanie et al., 2020; Hinyard & Kreuter, 2007). When strong narratives are included in advertisements, they have been found to elicit stronger emotive responses than advertisements without narratives, which in turn causes higher success rates for the ad, product, and brand (Kim et al., 2017)

Narrative Advertisements

Narrative advertisements do not focus as much on a product as they do the narrative, or story of the advertisement (Escalas, 1998; Shankar et al., 2001; Wang et al.,

2016). Rather than focusing on the value or specifications of a product, narrative advertisements are designed to draw viewers into an experience. It has been found that narratives in advertisements elicit greater physiological responses such as greater

attention, mental stimulation, and emotional responses (Lang, 1990; Toppano & Roberto,

2017) and are more persuasive than non-narratives (Escalas, 2004a; Kim et al., 2017).

Therefore, narrative advertisements are typically designed for the purpose of persuading

people to buy a product or identify with brand meanings, values, or overall personality

(Toppano & Roberto, 2017). Fern Johnson, in her book Imaging in Advertising, discussed

narrative in television commercials as an effective style of “presenting products and the

lifestyles associated with them” (Johnson, 2008, p. 12).

Apple’s ‘1984’

Apple’s ‘1984’ commercial, arguably the first true narrative advertisement, is a

bellwether of its kind. The commercial drew on George Orwell’s novel 1984 and

portrayed a dystopian society in which a “Big Brother” figure addressed a crowd of

indistinct people, all male, from a large screen as he droned on about “Information

Purification Directives” and “Unification of Thought.” A female runner in bright color,

starkly contrasting the industrial blues and grays of the rest of the set, was shown running

towards the screen carrying a large sledgehammer. The runner hurled the sledgehammer

and smashed the screen, exposing the crowd to bright light and covering them with dust.

The commercial ended with text overlaying images of the men’s shocked faces and a

voiceover stating “On January 24th, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And

you’ll see why 1984 won’t be like “1984.”” (Scott, 1984).

The now-iconic ad was 60 seconds long and aired nationally only once – during

halftime of Super Bowl XVIII – yet is touted as one of greatest commercials of all time

and is often referred to as a defining moment for the advertising landscape (Tomkovick et

8 al., 2001). Apple’s ‘1984’ told the story of a dystopian world, elicited a desire to break free, and offered a solution to escape a monotonous and dreary fate. The advertisement showed that Apple was preparing to flip the script on traditions and expectations, and implied that alignment with Apple would mean that the consumer was prepared to do the same.

Nearly 60 years after the FCCs initial approval of television commercial advertisements, Jennifer Edson Escalas (1998) conducted an analysis in which she examined 231 television advertisements that aired in Tucson, Arizona over a three-week period. She coded the advertisements by degree of narrative as determined by two five- point scales of story development and temporality. By her assessment, 21.6% of advertisements contained well-developed stories and over 40% scored either equal to or higher than the midpoint score of narrativity. Esslin (1979) argued that even among those that are not explicitly narrative advertisements, most are “essentially dramatic, because

… they use mimetic action to produce a semblance of real life, and the basic ingredients of drama” even if only implicitly (p. 97). Even in 1979, five years before Apple’s revolutionary Super Bowl spot, Esslin identified that most nationally distributed commercials exhibited at least the basic characteristics of drama: character and plot.

Defining Narrative Ads

Based on her own research and review of other scholarship in narrative and advertising, Escalas (1998) created a table describing different types of advertisements, including elements of narrative. The table, originally printed in the book Representing

Consumers: Voices, Views, and Visions, edited by Barbara B. Stern has been recreated

here.

Table 1

Advertising Definitions

Narrative ad An ad containing a narrative (typically one episode, although may be more) Drama ad Synonymous with narrative ad. (Elsewhere, emphasis on show v. tell (Wells 1988)), absence of narration (Deighton et al. 1989), inclusion of classical drama elements (see Table 9.1) (Stern 1994). Story ad Synonymous with narrative ad. (Elsewhere, emphasis on character, plot, and narration (Deighton et al. 1989)). Vignette ad A series of scenes and people, edited together in rapid succession, no chronology, no causality (Stern 1994). Transformational ad An ad that causes the experience with the product/brand to be different than the same experience would be without the ad (Puto and Wells 1984). Slice of life ad An ad with story-like scenarios (Mick 1987). Informational ad An ad that provides consumers with factual, relevant brand data in a logical manner (Puto and Wells 1984). Lecture ad An ad that tells the consumer about the product/brand (as opposed to showing) (Wells 1988). Argument ad A narrated ad with no characters and no plot (Deighton et al. 1989). Rational/Cognitive ad Synonymous with informational ads (Aaker and Norris 1982). Note. Reprinted from Representing Consumers: Voices, Views, and Visions, p. 276.

While comprehensive, the table presented by Escalas does not explicitly describe which types of advertisements are predominantly “narrative” in nature. With such a focus on narrative persuasion and narrative advertising, it would be beneficial for advertising

scholars to come to a consensus, or at least have a framework of understanding, for which

types of advertisements constitute, in general, “narrative advertisements.” Referenced in

Escalas’ work, Deighton, Romer, and McQueen (1989) created the “drama scale” that illustrated the contrast between argument and drama – or non-narrative and narrative – advertising in an attempt to provide some frames for better understanding some basic differences of narrative advertisements. The four-step continuous scale, read like a table with ad types paired with presence or absence of narration, character, or plot, explained the differences between Argument, Demonstration, Story, and Drama ads in which

Drama were the most narrative in nature.

Table 2

Drama Scale

Argument Narrated No character No plot

Demonstration Narrated No character No plot Story Narrated Character Plot Drama Unnarrated Character Plot

Note. Reprinted from Deighton et al. (1989). Using drama to persuade. Journal of

Consumer Research, 16(3). 336.

Deighton et al. (1989) described that on one extreme of the scale (“Argument”), the “indicative mood can be quite explicit about what consumers should believe and why” while on the other extreme (“Drama”), the “subjunctive mood” cannot make explicit claims but can, rather, embrace “the power of empathy” (p. 336). The authors further acknowledged that there are mixed forms of advertisements that can be placed throughout the scale including “narrated drama,” “dramatized argument,” or even variations with character and no plot (p. 336), but provided the scale to help better frame advertising research.

Because there still seems to be confusion and disagreements on what qualifies as a narrative advertisement, I have synthesized the definitions of advertising types as provided by Escalas (1998) and the Drama Scale specifics proposed by Deighton et al.

(1989) to create a continuum scale of narrative in advertising in which types of advertisements have been separated into two simple categories: narrative and non- narrative.

Figure 1

Narrative Advertisement Continuum

The narrative end of the continuum contains five ad types as described by Escalas and Deighton et al. Slice of Life ads are advertisements that contain story-like scenarios and therefore contain some semblance of narrative, but are less elaborate than a narrative or story ad. Vignette ads contain series of scenes and people edited together without particular emphasis on chronology or causality. Story ads are like Narrative and Drama ads in that they tell a cohesive story and contain traditional dramatic elements. However,

Story ads typically have more of an emphasis on plot, character, and, most distinctively, the presence of a narrator. Narrative ads and Drama ads both contain a narrative, classic

dramatic elements such as temporality, causality, and character, and typically lack

narration. Because Narrative and Drama ads have such similar definitions and are often

used interchangeably, they are placed at the same point on the continuum and grouped

together in analysis.

As with most continuum scales, there may be variants that fall between categories. As well, there may be some advertisements, especially in the case of those that fall into categories placed near the center (i.e. Transformational ads and Vignette ads), that may belong on the other side of the scale. However, the goal of this continuum is not to provide a definitive and unmoving rule for narrative advertisements but rather to provide a theoretical framework to simplify the parameters for this and future narrative advertisement research.

Utilizing the Narrative Advertising Continuum, Apple’s ‘1984’ can be considered an exemplar of a narrative advertisement as it aligns with the definitions of multiple types of advertisements that fall within the narrative category. Based on Escalas’ (1989) definition of a Narrative ad as “an ad containing one or more episode(s) of actors engaged in actions to achieve goals” (p. 273, 276), Apple’s ‘1984’ is, at its core, a

Narrative ad. Furthermore, according to Wells’ (1989) and Stern’s (1994) definitions,

‘1984’ could also be considered a Drama ad in that it includes classical dramatic elements such as exposition (setting of the stage, introducing the “Big Brother” character), rising action (woman running toward the screen), climax or turning point (hurling of the sledgehammer), and resolution (supposed enlightenment and a call to action). The ad cost

Apple $400,000 to produce and did not feature an image or any specifications of the new

13 computer (Stein, 2002; Tomkovick et al., 2001), yet 72,000 Macintosh computers were sold in the first 100 days of availability (Tomkovick et al., 2001; Yelkur et al., 2004).

Since 1984, narrative commercials with strong affective appeals have continued to evolve, become more expensive to produce and disseminate, and carry more weight in brand image.

Persuasiveness of Narrative Advertisements

Advertisements have become an integral part of society and play a major role in organizations’ and corporations’ marketing and financial plans. Some commercials are designed specifically to elicit strong affective responses that, in turn, may encourage actions implied by the advertisement itself. Humans are storytellers, and narratives are known to “evoke more meaning and emotions than bare facts” (Toppano & Roberto,

2017, p. 1). Narrative ads elicit more positive feelings and cognitive responses (Kim et al., 2017), evoke empathetic processing (Deighton et al., 1989), and the presence of emotion within commercials has even been found to increase the intensity of cardiac response and physiological arousal in viewers (Lang, 1990). Effective narrative advertisements have also been shown to increase brand attitudes among viewers (Escalas,

2004a; Escalas, 2004b; Kim et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2016). It has been empirically tested and proven time and again that narrative advertisements are more persuasive than non-narrative ads, so it is necessary here to discuss some possible reasons why.

Narrative Structure and Expected Outcomes

Narrative broadly refers to a message technique or story structure that conveys events in a story-like format (Ball & Applequist, 2019; Slater & Rouner, 2002). Narrative

structure is the design of a message that makes the message feel as though the creator is telling a story. Narrative structure can be expected to increase a viewer’s involvement and thus reduce reactance. Reactance, introduced in Brehm’s (1966) A Theory of

Psychological Reactance, is described as the determination to reassert one’s independence in the face of overt persuasive messages (Brehm, S. & Brehm, 1981;

Moyer‐Gusé, 2008; Moyer-Gusé & Nabi, 2010; Moyer-Gusé et al., 2012). Reactance is an arousal response with which people engage when they perceive their personal freedoms are being threatened (Brehm, J. W., 1966; Brehm, S. & Brehm, 1981).

Narrative structure within entertainment-education has been proven to facilitate an experience of involvement in the feature, therefore reducing reactance (Moyer‐Gusé,

2008). The extent to which a viewer is involved with a program determines their reactance to the message, and they more they are involved, the less reactance they should experience. When a message is not overtly persuasive, or is more narrative in nature, it can be expected that the arousal response of reactance will not be engaged because the viewer’s perception that they are being manipulated will be lessened.

Although Moyer-Gusé’s (2008) predictions, found in the Entertainment

Overcoming Resistance Model (EORM), were based in entertainment-education features, they can easily be transferred to other forms of narrative, including narrative advertisements. Commercials can be considered entertainment features in and of themselves, as they make their way into popular culture, often contain traditional dramatic elements, and are even celebrated as such (Alsop, 1985; Esslin, 1979;

McAllister & Galindo-Ramirez, 2017; McAllister, 1999; Siefert et al., 2009). Therefore,

it stands to reason that the predictions of the EORM would hold true for narrative

advertisements: the narrative structure of an advertisement should reduce reactance to

that advertisement’s persuasive claim. Furthermore, other predictions of the EORM (e.g.

transportation reduces counterarguing, parasocial interaction reduces reactance and

counterarguing, identification reduces counterarguing and changes outcome expectations)

should also hold true.

Transportation and Counterarguing

Chen and Chang (2017) found in their study of mini-film narrative advertisements that transportation was the best predictor of changes in attitudes and behaviors resulting from narrative persuasion. Narrative involvement, also referred to as transportation, immersion, and engagement, is “the interest with which viewers follow the events as they unfold in the story” (Moyer‐Gusé, 2008, p. 409). The idea of narrative involvement is that one ignores their present environment and is instead both cognitively and affectively invests in a narrative (Green, Melanie C. & Brock, 2000; Moyer‐Gusé, 2008; Slater &

Rouner, 2002). The influence of persuasive messages embedded within a story can often be determined by the extent to which a viewer is transported into the narrative (Chen &

Chang, 2017). As predicted with non-advertising narratives, narrative advertisements, through transportation, draw the viewer into the story, thus reducing counterarguing and encouraging the viewer to adopt the attitude(s) of the character(s) in the narrative (Chen

& Chang, 2017; Deighton et al., 1989).

Identification, Parasocial Interaction, Reactance, and Counterarguing

Narrative advertisements are more likely to encourage identification than non- narrative advertisements (Kim et al., 2017). Identification, perceived similarity, and liking can play a powerful role in people’s interaction within and outside of the mediated context (Moyer‐Gusé, 2008). A similar concept, parasocial interaction (PSI), refers to the perceived relationship that a consumer of media has with the people or characters within that media and has been described as the imagined interaction between viewer and media personnel, whether fictional or not (Eyal & Rubin, 2003; Hoffner, 1996). When viewers are engaged with PSI, they show greater propensity to react to stimuli in the ways of a typical social relationship (Giles, 2002). Though it is important to note that PSI and character liking are two distinct concepts (Slater & Rouner, 2002), liking is often paired with PSI as both relate to an evaluation of a character and subsequent desire for a relationship with that actor, actress, or character (Moyer‐Gusé, 2008).

Multiple studies have shown that PSI, also referred to as parasocial relationships or parasocial experiences, and character-liking reduce reactance and counterarguing to narrative messages (Moyer-Gusé & Nabi, 2010; Moyer-Gusé et al., 2012). Within narrative advertisements, identification with characters can also foster self-brand connections, making it difficult to counterargue the advertisement’s claims (Escalas,

2004b; Kim et al., 2017). Because main characters in narrative ads are often portrayed in a positive light, the character’s experiences, thoughts, and feelings are likely to transfer to the viewer and subsequently foster positive emotions toward the brand or product being advertised (Deighton et al., 1989; Kim et al., 2017; Puto & Wells, 1984). For example, at

the end of ‘1984,’ the viewer is positioned to feel a wishful identification with the runner

(Stein, 2002), desiring to be different from the industrial drones idly sitting by. These

feelings of Identification and PSI can result in stronger brand connections and further intentions to support the brand or purchase the advertised product.

Emotion and Recollection

Narrative thought helps people orient themselves to the world around them

(Escalas, 1998). Furthermore, narratives have been known to prompt stronger emotional

responses in viewers than non-narratives (Lang, 1990; Toppano & Roberto, 2017).

Though not all narratives may seem emotional, narratives have the power to transport

readers and viewers into a story, which results in stronger psychological responses than

non-narratives, thus eliciting some kind of emotion. Emotional commercials have

consistently shown superior responses – including greater liking, purchase intentions,

positive brand attitudes, and better recall – than non-emotional commercials (e.g. Batra &

Ray, 1986; Friestad & Thorson, 1986; Hitchon & Thorson, 1995; Kim et al., 2017;

Siefert et al., 2009). Though a thorough discussion of the cognitive processing that takes

place while watching an advertisement is outside of the parameters of this study, it is

worth noting that the effects that media (advertisements) have on viewers take place

through psychological processes that have been examined elsewhere (see Batra & Ray,

1986; Escalas, 1998; Escalas, 2004a; Escalas, 2004b; Hitchon & Thorson, 1995; Kim et

al., 2017; Siefert et al., 2009; Tsfati, 2011) and play an important part in people’s

enjoyment, purchase intentions, brand attitudes, and recollection.

In the early 1980s, there was a widespread belief that emotional advertisements did not “recall well” (Zielske, 1982). However, in 1986, Friestad and Thorson conducted a study in which they discovered that emotional messages have positive long-term effects on memory and show stronger levels of memory when compared to neutral messages

(Friestad & Thorson, 1986). In fact, numerous studies since then have shown that recollection of narrative advertising messages are easier and more efficient than recollection of non-narrative messages (Slater & Rouner, 2002). In terms of “wearout,” or the feeling of growing tired of an advertisement, emotional impact of ads have been found to significantly reduce wearout opposed to those advertisements that did not have any emotional impact (Hitchon & Thorson, 1995). Hitchon and Thorson (1995) also pointed out that although their same experiment showed no significant effects of Emotion or Involvement on brand name recall, it did indicate that experiential or emotion-inducing advertisements were effective, especially in viewer’s attitudinal responses.

Siefert et al. (2009) conducted a study of emotional engagement with Super Bowl commercials in which they measured the relationship between dial ratings for enjoyment of Super Bowl commercials (as reported by USA Today), online buzz (measured on

Myspace.com), and biometric data. They found that emotional engagement with the advertisements was a significant predictor of the amount of internet engagement

(downloads, views, and comments) – or “buzz.” In an intricate study about the mediating effect of affective responses in acceptance of advertising performed by Batra and Ray

(1986), Surgency, Elation, Vigor/Activation (SEVA) and social affection responses to commercials were found to be predictors of positive attitudes toward ads. Further,

viewers’ attitudes toward ads were found to be strong influencers of viewers’ brand attitudes, which predicted purchase intentions.

Since 1984, commercials with strong affective appeals have continued to evolve, become more expensive to produce and disseminate, and carry more weight in brand image. In the wake of massive successes like Nike’s “Dream Crazy” and utter failures like Pepsi’s “Jump In,” a consequential question remains: how might advertisers achieve the viewer response they aim to elicit? The studies mentioned above showcase the effectiveness of emotional appeals in commercials and point to the importance of understanding key factors that lead to viewers’ emotional responses. Friestad and

Thorson (1993) mentioned that research in psychology shows that events that evoke emotional responses tend to be more memorable than those that do not, but the same has not always been found to be true in advertising. In light of the strong emotional responses to both Nike’s and Pepsi’s advertisements as well as the swift response to Google’s

“Loretta” and the staying ability of Apple’s “1984,” scholars and practitioners alike should consider what about these advertisements made them stand out among the rest.

This Study: Commercials That Did it Right

Considering that narrative advertisements have been found to elicit stronger emotive responses than those non-narrative advertisements (Kim, Ratneshwar, &

Thorson, 2017), it seems appropriate to identify and examine current advertisements that fall within the “narrative” category. In this study, I examined award-winning advertisements from the last twelve years as well as commercials cited on popular listicles, or articles consisting of a series of items presented and ranked in list form, of the

“best” or “most memorable” commercials to identify what narrative features and types of

appeals were used. After examining roughly 1,770 advertisements, 173 fell into the scope

of this study. Of those 173, two award-winners repeated, fourteen ads were referred to on

multiple listicles, and four advertisements held spots as award-winners and on listicles.

Adjusting for these, the final set consisted of 144 unique commercials.

Award-winning advertisements were selected from the winners of the American

Advertising Awards from 2014 to 2020 and Clio Awards from 2009 to 2019. The

American Advertising Awards and Clio Awards were selected because they fit two

criteria for the scope of this study: they are American agencies and the awards are

specific to commercials and advertising. The five-year deficit between the American

Advertising and Clio Awards came simply from availability on their respective websites.

The 2020 Clio Award winners had not been announced at the time of this evaluation.

Listicles used for this study came from those found using the simple Google

searches “best commercials” and “most memorable commercials.” The commercials used

in this study came from five unique sources (Biteablei, considerableii, Quality Logo

Productsiii, The Empireiv, and The Pioneer Womanv). Although there are many websites

with similar lists, saturation began to hit after these five. Of the five lists, one was Super-

Bowl-commercial-specific while the rest were general lists of popular commercials.

The advertisements examined were selected based on pre-determined criteria and

categorized as described in the Narrative Advertisement Continuum. Their narrative

features and appeal types were also identified.

Criteria

The criteria for selected advertisements were carefully crafted to define strong

parameters to fit this study’s purpose. Those studied were video advertisements between

0 and 5 minutes in length that consisted of at least one basic feature of narrativity

(temporality, causality, character) and a persuasive appeal imbedded in the narrative. All

selected were considered to have been intended for an English-speaking, North American

audience, though some advertisements in other languages (e.g. Spanish) for North

American brands with English subtitles were included.

Because advertisements often have multiple versions that are lengthened or

shortened according to boundaries set by the network or medium, it seemed reasonable to

examine commercials and mini-film advertisements up to 5 minutes long. As well, some

advertisements that were prepared for an ambiguous audience (e.g. Jameson Irish

Whiskey’s “Fire” [2012]vi) were included. Finally, because of the ever-evolving

landscape of television in the form of network streaming on cellphones, tablets,

computers, and smart televisions as well as modern forms of television like Hulu, HBO

Max, and YouTube TV, the medium of the commercial (television or internet) was

deemed inconsequential.

Each of the advertisements were marked as having at least one of the narrative

features described above: temporality, causality, and character. Those that contained

Temporality had a clear beginning, middle, and end, simulating “lived time” (Bruner,

2004; Escalas, 2004a). As many as 81% of the commercials examined had some element of Temporality. Causality (89% of the total) established relationships between elements

and made consequences of actions taken throughout the narrative clear or, at least,

inferable (Allen, 1984; Escalas, 2004a; Toppano & Roberto, 2017). Finally, those with an

established Character (88%) consisted of a human or human-like agent that engaged in

the actions of the narrative (De Graaf et al., 2016). Many commercials contained various

combinations of the three narrative features, and 63% contained all three elements (55%

of award-winners and 69% of listicle ads). A table with full details of the results can be

found in Table A1 of Appendix A.

Table 3

Criteria: Narrative Feature

clear beginning, middle, and end; simulating “lived time” (inspired Temporality by Bruner, 2004; Escalas, 2004a) established relationships between elements; consequences of actions Causality clear or inferable (Allen, 1984; Escalas, 2004a; Toppano & Roberto, 2017) Character human or human-like agent (De Graaf et al., 2016)

Award Type

The advertisements selected from the American Advertising Awards or the Clio

Awards were Grand or Gold winners or Hall of Fame entrants. Winners won in a variety

of award categories from the expected “Product/Service” category to more unique

categories like “Direction,” “Cinematography,” and “Technique.” Award categories for both the American Advertising Awards and Clio Awards have evolved since 2014 and

2009, respectively, to better fit the advertising atmosphere. Some categories that were present in the earlier years of evaluation were retired or combined to welcome new, more

relevant categories that fit the current advertising climate. This evolution did not affect

the evaluation.

Some award-winning submissions were categorized as “Content and Contact” submissions that, in general, showed how a campaign proceeded and was successful over time. Although many of those submissions showed strong command of narrative and storytelling (e.g. Troy, Michigan Public Library’s “Book Burning Party” (2012)vii

recounted the measures a local public library took to save itself through viral marketing,

Bing’s “Decode Jay-Z” (2011)viii described how everyday people participated in Jay-Z’s

book launch), they fell outside of the scope of this project. Similarly, those that won

awards for integrated campaigns were not included in this analysis, although they often

included a television commercial or online video advertisement. The only advertisements

that were selected for this study that won awards for being part of an integrated campaign

were ones that won separate from the campaign. Most branded entertainment award-

winners were also excluded as most had some form of explicit appeal, not integrated into

the story. As well, most video game advertisements were excluded from this study as

many of them relied heavily on aspects of the games themselves. Though on the surface

they seemed to be narrative advertisements, it became clear that the narratives of the

commercials were representative of game narrative options. Lastly, product

demonstrations that were shown in video form were largely excluded from this study.

Although some companies were creative in their new product and technology

demonstrations (see Google’s voice search “Demo Slam: Chubby Bunny” [2011]ix and

IBM’s “Watson” [2011]x), the videos fell out of the scope of this study.

Categories

All 144 unique advertisements were coded by Commercial Type (Slice of Life,

Vignette, Story, Narrative/Drama) and Primary Appeal Type (Familiar, Relatable,

Inspirational, Emotional, Humorous). Some advertisements were also coded with

Secondary Appeal Types (Character/Spokesperson, Catchphrase, Nostalgia) that built off of or worked in tandem with the Primary Appeal Type. Commercial types were determined through deduction based on the definitions provided by Escalas (1998) and

Deighton et al. (1989) that were used to create the Narrative Advertisement Continuum.

Categorization for Primary Appeal Type and Secondary Appeal Type were developed through the process of induction by which themes emerged as more commercials were examined. These themes went through multiple iterations before being deemed the five

Primary Appeal Types and three Secondary Appeal Types detailed here.

Types of Narrative Advertisements

Unsurprisingly, Narrative and Drama ads made up the vast majority of advertisements in this set (49%). The nearest second Narrative Ad Type were Story ads at

19% and those considered Slice of Life advertisements and Vignette ads made up about

17% and 15% of the total set, respectively. Within listicles, Narrative and Drama ads were over two and a half times more frequent (52%) than Story (19%) or Vignette (20%) ads and more than five and a half times more frequent than Slice of Life (9%). Of the award-winners, Slice of Life and Vignette ads each constituted 18% of the sample, while

Story ads made up 22% and Narrative/Drama ads the remaining 43%. Full details of these results can be found in Table A2 in Appendix A.

Throughout the analysis, some key distinctions in Narrative Advertisement Types became clearer, further strengthening my understanding and hopefully the universal definitions of narrative advertisements. As described in previous work, Slice of Life advertisements are those that contain story-like scenarios that are not as embellished as those in Story or Narrative/Drama ads. Vignette ads contain series of scenes and people edited together, without any particular emphasis on chronology or causality. Slice of Life advertisements and Vignette ads can appear to be very similar, as can Slice of Life and

Story ads, but some important distinctions exist. For one, Slice of Life ads rarely include a narrator, while the presence of a narrator is what defines a Story ad, and Vignette ads often utilize narrators to tie the ad together and help viewers make sense of the rapid scene changes. In the same vein, Slice of Life ads may contain any combination of temporality, causality, or character where Vignette ads will not. Story and

Narrative/Drama advertisements are very similar with the main difference being the presence (Story) or absence (Narrative/Drama) of a narrator.

Some exemplars of Slice of Life advertisements include the classic Alka-Seltzer

“Mama Mia Spicy Meatballs” [1969]xi ad that showed an actor who cannot get his lines right during filming a meatball advertisement, the overwhelmingly popular Budweiser ad

“Wassup?!” (1999)xii, which showed the friendship between four men talking on the telephone about what they are doing, and Honda’s award-winning advertisement “Paper”

(2016)xiii, which showed the possibilities of a Honda engine, from award-winning motorbike to everyday family vehicle to F1 racecar. Nike’s recent “Dream Crazier”

(2019)xiv ad, which was narrated by Serena Williams and celebrated women in sport

doing what has been deemed “crazy,” falls into the category of a Vignette ad. The modern classic “The Man Your Man Could Smell Like” (2010)xv from Old Spice, which

showed images of bizarre scenarios edited together to confuse and entice the viewer, is

also an example of a Vignette ad.

Story ads and Narrative/Drama ads can be difficult to differentiate, but Story ads

were generally distinguished in this study by the presence of a narrator (FedEx’s

“Enchanted Forest” [2012]xvi), the character’s direct involvement with the camera or

audience (Bosch’s “Like a Bosch” [2019]xvii), and the true (Gillette’s “Handle with Care”

[2017]xviii) or tongue-in-cheek (Great American Soups’ “The Big Production” [1970]xix)

acknowledgement that it was an advertisement. Purely Narrative/Drama advertisements

made up the largest portion (49%) of this sample and included classics and new favorites

alike. Some classic examples of Narrative/Drama ads are Tootsie Roll’s “How Many

Licks?” (1969), which followed the story of a child asking forest animals how many licks

would take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop, and Coca-Cola’s “Hey Kid, Catch”

(1979), which showed “Mean Joe Green” softening up to a kid who handed him a Coke.

Some new Narrative/Drama favorites include Volkswagen’s “The Force” (2011)xx, which

showed a child in a Darth Vader costume testing his abilities with “the force,” and

Doritos’ “Goat for Sale” (2013)xxi, which showed the story of a Doritos-obsessed goat

and the poor guy who adopted it.

Primary Appeals

Some common themes emerged and evolved throughout the analysis process.

Mind-mapping potential narrative advertisement appeal types as well as cutting scraps of

27 paper with popular commercial titles and pasting them in globular Venn diagrams describing what made them stand out (seen in Appendix 3) led to the identification of five Primary Appeal Types – Familiar, Relatable, Inspirational, Emotional, and

Humorous – by which each advertisement was coded. These Appeal Types served as a

Primary code for this analysis. By reflecting on the assumptions and biases with which I entered analysis and through discussions with other scholars, each Appeal Type was expanded upon and detailed to be understood and accepted by other scholars and practitioners and so this study could be replicated, and findings reinforced. Because some of the Primary Appeal Types, like “Familiar” and “Relatable” or “Inspirational” and

“Emotional,” seem quite similar on the surface, here I explain more in-depth what each

Appeal Type is and is not before continuing with analysis and exemplars.

Familiar advertisements might make the viewer say to themselves “I have seen something like this before.” Familiar ads are reminiscent of popular books, movies, or television shows, and utilize familiar dramatic tropes. Familiar ads may be nostalgic or may be familiar based on the music used in the ad. Familiar advertisements are not reminiscent of everyday life but rather serve as recognizable media. Relatable advertisements may make the viewer see themselves in narrative because it is reminiscent of their own personal experiences or the experiences of close family and friends. Unlike

“Familiar” advertisements, Relatable ads are personal and reminiscent of everyday life rather than based on classic tropes or popular media. Inspirational commercials are empowering, encouraging, or motivational. They aim to exhibit something that the viewer wants to be or do, or something that the viewer wants to see in the world.

Inspirational ads typically advocate for something better than the current state, whether

that be corporate or personal. Inspirational advertisements may be emotional, but do not

totally rely on emotion. On the other hand, Emotional ads are sweet, sad, or touching and

play on a full range of emotions. Emotional advertisements make the viewer feel

something and can be nostalgic, happy, or cheery but not funny or particularly

inspirational. Finally, Humorous advertisements are made with the intent to make the

viewer laugh by being funny, slapstick, silly, or even ridiculous. Humorous ads may

utilize nostalgia, familiarity, or relatable but serve the main purpose of being humorous.

Table 4

Categories: Primary Appeal Types

familiar tropes, reminiscent of familiar stories (books, movies, Familiar television shows); “I’ve seen [something like] this before.” reminiscent of everyday life or personal experiences; “I [can] see Relatable myself in this.” empowering, encouraging, motivational; “I could/would like to Inspirational be/do/see that.” tugs on heartstrings, may appeal to a range of emotions; “I felt Emotional something.” funny, slapstick, tongue-in-cheek, silly, ridiculous or strange, makes Humorous the viewer laugh; “I laughed.”

Those which were categorized as Familiar (10% total) were either reminiscent of

familiar stories (Shake ‘N Bake’s “Ann B. Davis” [1981]xxii showed the television star

seemingly reprising her role as Alice from the hit The Brady Bunch as she traveled to the

local grocery for dinner supplies, and Apple’s “1984” [1984]xxiii which played off of

George Orwell’s book of the same name) or played on familiar narrative tropes (Axe’s

“Susan Glenn” [2013]xxiv told the classic story of the unattainable girl and the guy who

romanticized her memory). Commercials categorized as Relatable (7%) were either reminiscent of everyday life (Saturn’s “Sheet Metal” [2003]xxv featured people acting in

place of their vehicles) or, perhaps, one’s personal experience (Puma’s “After Hours

Athlete” [2011]xxvi showed people engaging in extracurriculars with friends following the

work day). Although relatability is subjective and generally dependent on personal life experiences and current events, those categorized as Relatable were considered to be aimed at a broad audience, mimicking common experiences.

Oftentimes inspirational commercials are also emotional advertisements.

However, though most inspirational commercials elicit some level of emotion, not all emotional commercials are inspirational. Therefore, these are two separate categories with specific qualifications. Those with an Inspirational appeal (20%) might make someone viewing the advertisement say, “I could do/be that,” “I would like to do/be that,” or “I would like to see more of that in the world.” Some with the Inspirational appeal were empowering like GE’s “Ideas” [2015]xxvii, which showed how ideas must be

nurtured and supported, and Microsoft’s “Be the One” [2020]xxviii, which told the story of

the Super Bowl’s first-ever female coach. Others, like The New York Times’

“Perseverance” [2019]xxix which showed the evolution of a Times headline and Chipotle’s

“Back to the Start” [2012]xxx which followed the life of a family farmer as he made

important decisions about how to run his farm, were encouraging. Even others with the

Inspirational Appeal Type were motivational (Jim Beam’s “Parallels” [2012]xxxi

reminded people that the choices they make today will impact their tomorrow and

Gillette’s “We Believe: The Best a Man Can Be” [2019]xxxii encouraged men to hold one

another accountable and raise the next generation of great men).

Emotional appeals, on the other hand, were deemed as those that would make someone say “I felt something” after viewing. Emotional appeals tug at the heartstrings

(P&G’s “Best Job” [2013]xxxiii showed moms of Olympic athletes, Budweiser’s “Puppy

Love” [2014]xxxiv followed the friendship of a puppy and a Clydesdale) and might be sad or downright upsetting (Sandy Hook Promise’s “Evan” [2017]xxxv showed how easy it is

to miss the signs of a school shooter and March for Our Lives’ “Generation Lockdown”

[2019]xxxvi showed how familiar children are with active shooter protocols). Other

Emotional advertisements may be fun or happy (Doritos’ “#NowItsHot” [2020]xxxvii,

featuring Chance the Rapper and the Backstreet Boys), and generally appeal to a range of

emotions (Google’s “Dear Sophie” [2010]xxxviii showed a dad’s documentation of his

daughter’s life, Extra’s “Origami” [2013]xxxix told the story of a dad who made origami

birds out of Extra wrappers for his daughter, who kept all of them). Approximately 16%

of all advertisements examined were considered Emotional.

Those in the Humorous category were commercials that seemed to have the goal

of making people laugh. Approximately 52% of all commercials examined fell into the

Humorous category. Humorous commercials are funny, like Reebok’s “Terry Tate:

Office Linebacker” [2003]xl which showed the fictional linebacker tackling coworkers when they did not follow directions or wasted time and Skittles’ “Piñata” [2009]xli which

featured a papier-mâché man confront his coworker for beating him with a stick and

hoping Skittles would fall out. Some Humorous commercials rely on situational comedy

like Got Milk?’s “Aaron Burr” [1993]xlii, which tells the crushing story of an Alexander

Hamilton fanatic who was unable to win a contest due to his lack of milk. Others are

more tongue-in-cheek (Viagra’s “Antiquing” [2010]xliii, Tide’s “It’s a Tide Ad”

[2018]xliv), ridiculous or strange (Luv’s’ “New Kid” [2010]xlv, Old Spice’s “Momsong”

[2014]xlvi), and generally make people laugh (Alka-Seltzer’s “I Can’t Believe I Ate the

Whole Thing” [1972]xlvii, Samsung’s “Ostrich” [2017]xlviii).

While most advertisements were coded with one Primary Appeal Type, some

advertisements were categorized with multiples that seemed completely intertwined and

inseparable. This was most common with Familiar + Humorous ads (3% of the total) that

relied on some level of familiarity to make them funny. For example, Avocados From

Mexico’s “First Draft Ever” (2016)xlix, which was set 4 billion years ago and showed

plants and animals from around the world waiting to be claimed by different countries as

their native species, was clearly designed to make the viewer laugh while also playing off

of the concept of the NFL Draft. Doritos’ “The Cool Ranch” (2020)l was a silly

advertisement, showing a dance-off between Lil Nas X and Sam Elliott, specifically

playing off the Old Western trope of gunslingers and duels. Because some advertisements

were coded with two Primary Appeal Types, the percentages of each Appeal Type found

in the set combine to more than 100%. Table A3 in Appendix A provides more details on

the numbers of each Appeal Type found in this analysis.

Secondary Appeals

Some advertisements (more details in Table A4 of Appendix A) were given a

Secondary Appeal code that was not the overarching theme of the advertisement, but felt

relevant to include. For instance, approximately 35% of all advertisements examined

contained a recognizable character or spokesperson. Even more interestingly, this

percentage was higher (52%) in listicles. In a simple Google search of “most memorable commercials,” the top recommended related search is “Television advertisement commercial characters.” It seems apparent that the inclusion of a familiar character (Bud

Light’s Bud Knight in “Joust” [2021],li Dunkin’ Donuts’ Fred the Baker in “Time to

Make the Donuts” [1982]lii) or spokesperson(s) (Betty White and Abe Vigoda in

Snickers’ “Hungry Betty White” [2010]liii, Chris Evans, Rachel Dratch, John Krasinski,

and David “Big Papi” Ortiz in Hyundai’s “Smaht Pahk” [2020]liv)). Another popular appeal is the use of a catchphrase.

Though catchphrases, or catchy, recognizable sayings, only showed up in about

3% of all of the ads in this set, it is important to note that many of the advertisements that did utilize a catchphrase were the first of many and some of the catchphrases took on lives of their own in popular culture. For instance, Wendy’s 1984 ad “Where’s the Beef?”

lv introduced a catchphrase that has been called one of the “best” and “most famous”

slogans and can still be heard in popular culture and advertising today (Ad Age, 1999;

Logie, 2020; Nemetz, 2017). The ad showed three older women examining a burger with

a very large bun, calling the bun “very big” and “fluffy.” When one of the women pulled

the top of the bun off the burger, the three women seemed surprised and disappointed

before one of them asked the now-classic question, “where’s the beef?” Following that advertisement, which stayed on air for 10 weeks, Wendy’s gained 10% more sales in

1984 than the previous year and increased by 31% by 1985 (Logie, 2020; Nemetz, 2017;

Spears, 2018). The phrase made its way onto bumper stickers, into television shows, and

even into the 1984 Democratic debate when Walter Mondale used the phrase to ctiticize

Gary Hart’s “lack of substance” during the Democratic primary (Logie, 2020; Nemetz,

2017; Spears, 2018). In 2011, the slogan was resurrected with the addition of the answer,

“here’s the beef” (Logie, 2020; Nemetz, 2017).

Verizon Wireless introduced a slogan in their 2002 commercial “Test Man

Launch”lvi that was a familiar refrain for real-life Verizon Wireless test people and cellphone users everywhere: “Can you hear me now?” The ad followed a “test man’s” journey as he set out to obscure places to test the strength of Verizon’s signal.

Periodically he asked someone on the other end of the line “can you hear me now?” and, after receiving confirmation, replied “good!” In the first year of the campaign, Verizon’s customers grew by 10% and then by 15% in the second year (Bali Sunset, 2008; The

Drum, 2016). The advertisement mimicked Verizon’s actual test people, who drove over

100,000 miles per year to test the network as cell phone use increased in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and continued on to success with the recognizable test man, played by

Paul Marcarelli, and slogan showing up in more than 100 commercial spots (The Drum,

2016). Verizon’s slogan and test man campaign were so successful that, in 2016, controversy struck as Marcarelli changed allegiance and joined Verizon’s competitor,

Sprint, taking the slogan with him (Baig, 2016; Goldman, 2016). The Sprint ad featured

Marcarelli stating that he used to ask, “can you hear me now?” for Verizon, and ends with him looking to camera with a coy grin, saying, “can you hear that?” Sprint’s CEO mentioned that they were relying on people’s recognition of Marcarelli and the slogan

when they launched their campaign featuring both (Baig, 2016). The Sprint ad drew so much attention that Verizon had to respond. Verizon attempted to discredit Sprint by stating that Sprint was using their spokesperson and slogan because, in 2016, they had finally caught up to Verizon’s 2002 network and that the question itself was outdated, having been replaced with a more current “can you see me now?” in Verizon’s 2016 advertisement featuring Jamie Foxxlvii (Matyszczyk, 2016).

Nostalgia, the third Secondary Appeal type examined in this study, is the presence

of something reminiscent of a viewer’s past. Though Nostalgia and Familiarity may seem

similar, nostalgia has been shown to be its own unique concept and therefore warranted its own code. Similarly, not all that is familiar is nostalgic. Nostalgia has garnered a lot of attention in various areas of scholarship, and has been proven to be an effective marketing strategy (see Muehling et al., 2004; Pascal et al., 2002). Nostalgia was coded

as a secondary appeal for this study because advertisements that play on nostalgia tend to

have another, more prominent appeal. Approximately 8% of the commercials in this set

consisted of nostalgia and had primary appeals of Familiarity, Relatability, and Humor.

In the case of the findings here, Nostalgia was considered anything reminiscent of the

past, including childhood (SunnyD’s “Rollerblade” [2016]lviii was reminiscent both of

spending time with friends as a child and was a nearly shot-for-shot remake of one of

SunnyD’s famous ads from the 1990s), previously popular shows, movies, and characters

(Snickers’ “Brady Bunch” [2016]lix combined multiple classic Brady Bunch storylines into one advertisement) and music (HP’s “Awaken Your Force” [2016]lx featured John

William’s Star Wars soundtrack and Heineken’s “Hero” [2016]lxi reprised Bonnie Tyler’s classic song Holding Out for a Hero).

Table 5

Categories: Secondary Appeal Types

Character/ famous endorsement or recognizable character created by the brand Spokesperson (e.g. Progressive’s Flo) Catchphrase popular, recognizable saying (e.g. “Where’s the beef?”) reminiscent of the past (e.g. childhood, previously popular or Nostalgia classic shows, movies, music, and characters)

Campaigns and Narration

In general, campaigns fell out of the scope of this study because the intent was to examine individual commercials for their narrative features and appeal types. However, some advertisements that won individual awards were part of larger campaigns and were coded as such. Those that were coded as part of campaigns were either part of a campaign that year (e.g. Dos Equis’s “The Most Interesting Man: Amazon” [2011]lxii part of the overarching “Most Interesting Man” campaign, Google’s “Dear Sophie”

[2012]xxxviii part of Google’s “The Web is What You Make of It” campaign), intentionally reminiscent of a previous advertisement (e.g. Old Spice’s “Dadsong” [2015]lxiii, follow- up to the previous year’s Momsong), or pointing to more ad content elsewhere (e.g. EA

Sports’ “Madden: The Movie” [2016]lxiv invited people to go online for more content).

About 26% of award-winning advertisements were part of larger campaigns as well as approximately 12% of listicle ads.

Narrators were present in approximately 28% of all advertisements in the set.

Other than Story ads, of which 100% had a narrator, Vignette ads most commonly (45%)

contained a narrator. In fact, 60% of listicle Vignette ads had narrators, though only 38%

of award-winning Vignette ads did. While many of the advertisement narrators were the

classic third-person narrators (e.g. Axe’s “Sporty” [2013]lxv, Donate Life’s “The World’s

Biggest Asshole” [2017]lxvi), nearly 38% were characters in the advertisements (e.g.

Monster.com’s “When I Grow Up” [1999]lxvii, Tempur-Pedic’s “Bear” [2014]lxviii).

Though testing the effectiveness of a third-person narrator versus a first-person narrator is outside of this study, there have been studies on the cognitive effects of narrative perspectives (Jahn, 1997) and some research has shown that a first-person narrator may encourage “experience taking” and stronger trust (Kaufman & Libby, 2012; van Lissa et

al., 2016).

This Study: Commercials That Did it Wrong?

Even if a brand creates an advertisement that meets all of the aforementioned

standards, there is no guarantee that it will be a success. Pepsi’s “Jump In,” was

stylistically similar to Nike’s “Dream Crazylxix” and most of the advertisements analyzed here. The commercial consisted of all three narrative features (temporality, causality, and character), can be considered a Narrative or Drama ad, and utilized an Inspirational

Appeal Type. However, the advertisement was seen as trivializing to the Black Lives

Matter movement and was timed poorly. Other advertisements with seemingly good intentions have met the same fate. By examining four listicles referring to some of the

“worst ads ever,” I identified 32 advertisements, 23 of which are unique, that fit the same

37 general criteria as described above. Though the set seems small, I quickly hit saturation as most listicles had the same things to say about the same sets of ads. I did not use any

Super-Bowl-specific listicles as they were either specific to a certain year, which would be inconsistent with my selection for the “best” ads and could potentially skew the results, or they simply reiterated the same commercials that were already examined by other lists. Of the 23 unique ads, 22 of them (96%) showed Temporality, 22 (96%) contained Causality, and 22 (92%) included some form of Character. The majority of the advertisements contained all three Narrative Features (87%) and over half of the advertisements (54%) were Narrative or Drama ads. Story ads made up 29% and Slice of

Life and Vignette ads each made up 8% of the sample. By far the most popular Appeal

Type for these advertisements was Humorous (58%), followed by Emotional (29%),

Inspirational (21%) and Familiar at a mere 4%.

Although these advertisements have similar content and features as well-liked advertisements, the brands clearly missed the mark somewhere along the way. Some common Missteps – Trivialization, Perpetuation, and Otherwise Offensive – emerged, shedding light on what some of the possible factors leading to these advertisement’s failures. Those that were accused of Trivialization were said to be making light of important issues like mental health, social justice, oppression, and tragedy. Those that were marked as Perpetuating upheld harmful racial and gendered stereotypes, including misogynistic ideals as well as homophobia and transphobia. Finally, some ads were accused of being hypocritical or otherwise offensive, advocating for something in opposition to the brand, insulting groups of potential customers, or simply timed poorly.

The most common Misstep that emerged from the set was the Perpetuation of

negative stereotypes and power imbalances. These advertisements, approximately 48% of

the sample, perpetuated racial stereotypes (SalesGenie.com’s “Chinese Pandas” [2008]lxx,

Mountain Dew’s “Police Lineup” [2013]lxxi), misogynistic ideals (Miller Lite’s

“Catfight” [2003]lxxii, Peloton’s “The Gift that Gives Back” [2019]lxxiii), as well as trans- and homophobia (Holiday Inn’s “Bob Johnson” [1997]lxxiv, Snickers’ “Mechanic’s Kiss”

[2007]lxxv). Approximately 22% of the ads in the set were accused of Trivialization of important issues. They were seen as trivializing serious issues such as suicide (General

Motors’ “Suicidal Robot” [2007]lxxvi, Hyundai’s “Pipe Job” [2013]lxxvii) sexual

harassment (Quizno’s’ “Toasty Torpedo” [2009]lxxviii), social justice (Pepsi’s “Jump In”

[2017]lxxix), and oppression (Groupon’s “Tibet” [2011]lxxx).

Advertisements that were deemed Otherwise Offensive (30%) were considered hypocritical, insulting, grotesque, or otherwise insulting to viewers. Some advertisements were criticized not necessarily for the messages themselves, but rather for the advertisement’s placement within larger narratives or the perceived hypocrisy of the associated brands. McDonald’s “Signs” (2015)lxxxi ad showed images of McDonald’s

signs across the US with various messages: “#PrayforDrew,” “Boston Strong,” “Happy

30th Ed n Beth,” “It’s a Girl Rosalie Kay.” The ad was intended to be inspirational,

showing the integral role McDonald’s plays in their communities across the country.

However, the advertisement was criticized for attempting to capitalize off tragedies.

Nationwide’s shocking “Boy” (2015)lxxxii Super Bowl spot had similar backlash. The

endearing young protagonist in Boy was found to be recounting all of the things he would

39 never be able to do after perishing in what is presumed to be an accidental drowning.

Nationwide was criticized for attempting to profit off of tragedy as well as for airing it during the Super Bowl.

McDonald’s was also criticized for the timing of its “Signs” ad because it premiered at a time when the organization was struggling with sales and other internal issues (Bowerman, 2015). Viewers expected that McDonald’s was using the heartwarming commercial to circumvent addressing other corporate issues. Similarly,

Gillette’s “We Believe: The Best a Man Can Be,” also on the list of best commercials of all time, received backlash for being hypocritical in their calls to be better and respect women. While some of the backlash came from misguided men who believed the ad was saying ‘all men are terrible,’ some of the backlash pointed out that the company itself could make small changes to support women, including not charging more for products advertised for “women” than the same products advertised for “men.”

Conclusion

The case of Gillette’s “We Believe” commercial, as well as Nike’s “Dream

Crazy,” Google’s “Loretta,” and countless others on these lists prove that creating advertisements is a tricky business with a delicate balance. Even in the case of a technically and stylistically flawless commercial, there is always the possibility that the ad will receive harsh criticism or backlash. However, some risks (e.g. partnering with polarizing spokespeople or sticking to a specific advertising style even if it may turn some people off of your brand) are worth taking. One key takeaway I have found from this analysis is that you cannot please everyone; and if your goal is to do so, you will

40 reach no one. Regardless, there are some steps that can be taken to try to alleviate those negative responses.

Kim, Ratneshwar, and Thorson (2017) offered some tips that are directly applicable to what was seen here. First, they state that narrative structure should promote high emotional involvement and create a “positive hedonic experience” for the viewer (p.

293). Secondly, they state that the narrative should be credible. From my own analysis, it is abundantly clear that timing is also of the utmost importance. Nationwide’s Boy got terrible backlash for being aired during the Super Bowl, an event usually enjoyed in large groups of family and friends. Death of a child may have been too shocking for the environment in which the ad was viewed. Though it is impossible to know, it is at least conceivable that the company would not have gotten such harsh reviews if they had simply aired the ad at another time. Secondly, while it is important for brands to stay on the pulse, it is also important to ask, “should our brand get involved?” Sometimes, like in the case of Pepsi, the answer is no.

We know that narratives, in general, help people circumvent their natural desire to reassert personal freedom in the face of persuasive messages (Moyer‐Gusé, 2008) and that narrative advertisements elicit more positive feelings and cognitive responses such as identification, liking, purchase intentions, positive brand attitudes, and better recall than non-narrative advertisements (Batra & Ray, 1986; Friestad & Thorson, 1986; Hitchon &

Thorson, 1995; Kim et al., 2017; Siefert et al., 2009). The Narrative Advertisement

Continuum defines the types of advertisements respective to each type’s level of narrativity. The continuum serves two purposes: to define which types of advertisements

are considered “narrative” and might benefit an agency with the desired benefits seen in

narrative advertising; and to provide a clearer vocabulary and understanding for

advertising researchers and scholars to build upon the literature with clear parameters and

communal understanding. Key Appeal Types used in successful narrative advertisements have also been identified along with exemplars of each type. Furthermore, key Missteps have been identified to help creators attempt to avoid harsh backlash like that of any of the “worst” ads identified here

With these findings, I have created a Narrative Advertisement Development

Guide that outlines the Narrative Ad Types, Narrative Features, and Primary and

Secondary Appeals detailed here for use in industry. The guide describes the differences in Narrative Ad types as well as provides archetypal examples of each. Primary and

Secondary Appeal Types are characterized with exemplars and explanations of their

intended audience. A brief overview of research done on narrative features and

anticipated psychological responses to those features is described. Finally, some

examples of the greatest ad failures and their Missteps are exhibited.

Limitations and Future Research

There were many types of advertisements and commercials that were not included in this study for various reasons. Future studies should take the framework of this study and apply it to other types of advertisement media. As well, awards given outside of the

United States should be examined along with identifying Appeal Types for other countries. This study focused mainly on English-speaking, North American audiences.

Future research examining narrative advertisements from around the world would add an interesting dynamic to the growing research on narrative advertising.

This analysis was done by one researcher with limited coding input by anyone else. Future scholarship along the same lines should include other researchers so proper intercoder reliability can be established. Though I took care to triple and quadruple check labels and codes, recoding with new and clearer understanding of each Ad and Appeal

Type up until the day this was turned in, it is possible that some advertisements could appear to have different features, types, and appeals to other scholars that I could see.

References

Ad Age. (1999). Top 10 Slogans. Advertising Age. Retrieved March 28, 2021 from

https://adage.com/article/special-report-the-advertising-century/ad-age-advertising-

century-top-10-slogans/140156

Allen, J. F. (1984). Towards a general theory of action and time. Artificial Intelligence,

23(2), 123-154. DOI: 10.1016/0004-3702(84)90008-0

Alsop, R. (1985, March 21). When is a TV ad not an ad? When it's hyped as an event.

Wall Street Journal.

Baig, E. C. (2016). Verizon's 'can you hear me now' guy now at Sprint. USA Today Tech:

USA Today.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/baig/2016/06/05/verizons-can-you-

hear-me-now-guy-now-sprint/85458446/

Bali Sunset. (2008, May 9). Can you hear me now?. Campaign. http://marketing-case-

studies.blogspot.com/2008/05/can-you-hear-me-now-campaign.html

Batra, R., & Ray, M. L. (1986). Affective responses mediating acceptance of advertising.

Journal of Consumer Research, 13(2). https://www.jstor.org/stable/2489229

Beer, J. (2019). One year later, what did we learn from Nike’s blockbuster Colin

Kaepernick ad?. fastcompany.com: Fast Company.

https://www.fastcompany.com/90399316/one-year-later-what-did-we-learn-from-

nikes-blockbuster-colin-kaepernick-ad

Bowerman, M. (2015). Not everyone lovin' McDonald's new ad. USA Today Monday:

USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/01/14/mcdonalds-signs-

ad-causes-a-stir/21742137/

Brehm, J. W. (1966). A Theory of Psychological Reactance. Academic Press.

Brehm, S., & Brehm, J. (1981). Introduction: Freedom, Control, and Reactance Theory.

Psychological Reactance: A Theory of Freedom and Control (pp. 1-11). Academic

Press.

Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of Meaning. Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J. S. (2004). Life as narrative. Social Research, 71(3), 691-710.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40970444

Burke, M., & Klingemann, S. (2019). Taking a knee on social activism: Nike runs a

reputation risk. Insights: Reputation Institute.

https://insights.reputationinstitute.com/blog-ri/taking-a-knee-on-social-activism-

nike-runs-a-reputation-risk

Chadwick, S., & Zipp, S. (2018). Nike, Colin Kaepernick and the pitfalls of 'woke'

corporate branding. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/nike-colin-

kaepernick-and-the-pitfalls-of-woke-corporate-branding-102922

Chen, T., & Chang, H. (2017). The effect of narrative transportation in mini-film

advertising on reducing counterearguing. International Journal of Electronic

Commerce Studies, 8(1), 25-46. DOI: 10.7903/ijecs.1476

Cosentino, A. (2019). Risk and reward: An analysis of #BoycottNike as a response

to Nike’s Colin Kaepernick advertising campaign. Elon Journal of Undergraduate

Research in Communications, 10(1), 54-63.

https://www.elon.edu/u/academics/communications/journal/wp-

content/uploads/sites/153/2019/05/06_Cosentino.pdf

De Graaf, A., Sanders, J., & Hoeken, H. (2016). Characteristics of narrative interventions

and health effects: A review of the content, form, and context of narratives in health-

related narrative persuasion research. Review of Communication Research, 4, 88-

131. https://rcommunicationr.org/index.php/rcr/article/view/24

Deighton, J., Romer, D., & McQueen, J. (1989). Using drama to persuade. Journal of

Consumer Research, 16(3), 335-343. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2489514

Diaz, A. (2019). Nike's 'Dream Crazy' nabs Outstanding Commercial Emmy. Ad Age.

https://adage.com/article/advertising/nikes-dream-crazy-nabs-outstanding-

commercial-emmy/2197021

Dowd, K. (2020). People had very strong reactions to Google's 'Loretta' Super Bowl

commercial. sfgate.com: https://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/google-ad-

loretta-reactions-assistant-15024955.php#dfpAd-dfp-8

Dozé, M. (2019). Misreading the rhetorical situation: An analysis of the Kendall Jenner

Pepsi commercial. Young Scholars in Writing, 15, 116-122.

https://youngscholarsinwriting.org/index.php/ysiw/article/view/267

Dream Crazy. Acord, L. (Director). (2018, September 3,). [Video] Portland:

Wieden+Kennedy. https://www.wk.com/work/nike-dream-crazy/

Escalas, J. E. (1998). Advertising narratives: What are they and how do they work? In B.

B. Stern (Ed.), Representing consumers: Voices, views, and visions (pp. 267-289).

Routledge.

Escalas, J. E. (2004a). Imagine yourself in the product: Mental simulation, narrative

transportation, and persuasion. Journal of Advertising, 33(2), 37-48. DOI:

10.1080/00913367.2004.10639163

Escalas, J. E. (2004b). Narrative processing: Building consumer connections to brands.

Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1), 168-180.

https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1401&2_19

Esslin, M. (1979). Aristotle and the advertisers: The television commercial considered as

a form of drama. The Kenyon Review, 1(4), 96. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4335070

Eyal, K., & Rubin, A. M. (2003). Viewer aggression and homophily, identification, and

parasocial relationships with television characters. Journal of Broadcasting &

Electronic Media, 47(1), 77-98. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4701_5

Fordyce, L. (2018). Digital strategy critique: Pepsi "Live for Now" campaign = social

media fail. https://socialmediatransformingthejournalismlandscape.wordpress.com/

Friestad, M., & Thorson, E. (1986). Emotion-eliciting advertising: Effects on long term

memory and judgement. Advances in Consumer Research, 13, 111-116.

https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/6475/volumes/v13/NA-13

Friestad, M., & Thorson, E. (1993). Remembering ads: The effects of encoding

strategies, retrieval cues, and emotional response. Journal of Consumer Psychology,

2(1), 1-23. DOI: 10.1016/S1057-7408(08)80072-1

Giles, D. C. (2002). Parasocial interaction: A review of the literature and a model for

future research. Media Psychology, 4(3), 279-305.

https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0403_04

Goldman, D. (2016). Verizon's 'can you hear me now' guy joins Sprint. CNN Business:

CNN. https://money.cnn.com/2016/06/05/technology/sprint-verizon-can-you-hear-

me-now/index.html

Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of

public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 701-721.

https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.701

Green, M., Bilandzic, H., Fitzgerald, K., & Paravati, E. (2020). Narrative effects. In Mary

Beth Oliver, Arthur A. Raney, and Jennings Bryant (Ed.), Media Effects: Advances

in Theory and Research (pp. 130-145). Routledge.

Haithman, D., & Blyth, A. (2019). Controversial Colin Kaepernick Nike 'Dream Crazy'

ad wins Emmy for Best Commercial. Deadline. https://deadline.com/2019/09/nike-

dream-crazy-best-commercial-emmy-1202735455/

Hector, J. (2019). Nike’s value up $26.2 billion since Colin Kaepernick deal, and they’re

set to drop his signature shoe in December. bet.com: BET.

https://www.bet.com/news/sports/2019/11/22/nike_s-value-up-26-2-billion-since-

colin-kaepernick-deal-and-the.html

Hinyard, L. J., & Kreuter, M. W. (2007). Using narrative communication as a tool for

health behavior change: a conceptual, theoretical, and empirical overview. Health

Education & Behavior, 34(5), 777-792. DOI: 10.1177/1090198106291963

Hitchon, J. C., & Thorson, E. (1995). Effects of emotion and product involvement on the

experience of repeated commercial viewing. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic

Media, 39(3), 376-389. DOI: 10.1080/08838159509364313

Hoffner, C. (1996). Children's wishful identification and parasocial interaction with

favorite television characters. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 40(3),

389-402. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838159609364360

Jahn, M. (1997). Frames, preferences, and the reading of third-person narratives:

Towards a cognitive narratology. Poetics Today, 18(4), 441-468.

https://doi.org/10.2307/1773182

Johnson, F. L. (2008). Imaging in Advertising: Verbal and Visual Codes of Commerce.

Routledge.

Kaufman, G. F., & Libby, L. K. (2012). Changing beliefs and behavior through

experience-taking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology; J Pers Soc

Psychol, 103(1), 1-19. DOI: 10.1037/a0027525

Kerby, A. P. (1991). Narrative and the Self. Indiana University Press.

Kim, E. (., Ratneshwar, S., & Thorson, E. (2017). Why narrative ads work: An integrated

process explanation. Journal of Advertising, 46(2), 283-296. DOI:

10.1080/00913367.2016.1268984

Kish, M. (2018). Updated: Opinion split on Nike Kaepernick ad. Retailing: Portland

Business Journal. https://www.bizjournals.com/portland/news/2018/09/07/nike-

kaepernick-ad-generates-66-million-in.html

Lang, A. (1990). Involuntary attention and physiological arousal evoked by structural

features and emotional content in TV commercials. Communication Research, 7(3),

275-299. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F009365090017003001

Liffreing, I. (2017). Social media trashes Pepsi's 'tone-deaf' Kendall Jenner ad. campaign

News. https://www.campaignlive.com/article/social-media-trashes-pepsis-tone-deaf-

kendall-jenner-ad/1429600

LLLLITL. (2019, May 26) Nike - Dream Crazy (case study) Cannes Lions 2019 Grant

Prix Outdoor + Entertainment for Sport [Video]. YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1hDscZfE2w

Logie, J. (2020, Sep 15). "Where's the beef?" The story of the most famous slogan ever.

Better Marketing. https://bettermarketing.pub/wheres-the-beef-the-story-of-the-

most-famous-slogan-ever-550d3f0c48c

Lyons, K. (2020). Google's tearjerker Super Bowl ad is sad and creepy. The Verge.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/29/21113812/google-super-bowl-ad-loretta-2020

Main, K. (2021). Everything you need to know about TV advertising costs. Traditional

Marketing How To: Fit Small Business. https://fitsmallbusiness.com/tv-advertising/

Matyszczyk, C. (2016). Verizon says 'can you hear me now?' tagline is now irrelevant.

CNET. https://www.cnet.com/news/verizon-says-can-you-hear-me-now-is-now-

irrelevant/

McAllister, M. P. (1999). Super Bowl Advertising as Commercial Celebration. The

Communication Review, 3(4), 403-428. DOI: 10.1080/10714429909368592

McAllister, M. P., & Galindo-Ramirez, E. (2017). Fifty Years of Super Bowl

Commercials, Thirty-Two Years of Spectacular Consumption. The International

Journal of the History of Sport, 34(1-2), 46-64. DOI:

10.1080/09523367.2017.1336162

Moyer‐Gusé, E. (2008). Toward a theory of entertainment persuasion: Explaining the

persuasive effects of entertainment‐education messages. Communication Theory,

18(3), 407-425. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.00328.x

Moyer-Gusé, E., Jain, P., & Chung, A. H. (2012). Reinforcement or reactance?

Examining the effect of an explicit persuasive appeal following an entertainment-

education narrative. Journal of Communication, 62(6), 1010-1027. DOI:

10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01680.x

Moyer-Gusé, E., & Nabi, R. L. (2010). Explaining the effects of narrative in an

entertainment television program: Overcoming resistance to persuasion. Human

Communication Research, 36(1), 26-52. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01367.x

Muehling, D. D., Sprott, D. E., & Sprott, D. E. (2004). The power of reflection: An

empirical examination of nostalgia advertising effects. Journal of Advertising, 33(3),

25-35. DOI: 10.1080/00913367.2004.10639165

Nemetz, D. (2017). The inside story of Wendy's "Where's the beef?" ad. Yahoo! News.

https://yhoo.it/3u1cCJv

Nike. (n.d.). Nike's New Just Do It Campaign. News: Nike.

https://news.nike.com/featured_video/just-do-it-dream-crazy-film

Novy-Williams, E. (2018). Kaepernick campaign created $43 million in buzz for Nike.

Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-04/kaepernick-

campaign-created-43-million-in-buzz-for-nike-so-far

Oster, E. (2020). Unruly ranks Google tearjerker 'Loretta' as the most effective ad of

Super Bowl 2020. adweek.com: https://www.adweek.com/brand-marketing/unruly-

ranks-google-tearjerker-loretta-as-the-most-effective-ad-of-super-bowl-2020/

Pascal, V. J., Sprott, D. E., & Muehling, D. D. (2002). The influence of evoked nostalgia

on consumers' responses to advertising: An exploratory study. Journal of Current

Issues & Research in Advertising, 24(1), 39-47.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2002.10505126

Polkinghorne, D. E. (1988). Narrative knowing and the human sciences. State University

of New York Press.

Polkinghorne, D. E. (1991). Narrative and self-concept. Journal of Narrative and Life

History, 1(2-3), 135-153. https://doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2002.10505126

Puto, C. P., & Wells, W. D. (1984). Informational and transformational advertising: The

differential effects of time. ACR North American Advances, 11. 638-643.

https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/6323

Renstrom, J. (2020). The sinister realities of Google's tear-jerking Super Bowl

commercial. Technology: Slate. https://slate.com/technology/2020/02/google-

assistant-super-bowl-commercial-loretta.html

Ricœur, P., McLaughlin, K., & Pellauer, D. (1984). Time and Narrative. University of

Chicago Press.

Schad, T. (2020). Google tugs at heartstrings with touching Super Bowl ad about

'Loretta'. USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/Ad-

Meter/2020/01/28/google-super-bowl-commercial-watch-ad-starring-

loretta/4574516002/

Schneider, E. F., Lang, A., Shin, M., & Bradley, S. D. (2004). Death with a story: How

story impacts emotional, motivational, and physiological responses to first-person

shooter video games. Human Communication Research, 30(3). 361-375.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00736.x

Shankar, A., Elliott, R., & Goulding, C. (2001). Understanding consumption:

Contributions from a narrative perspective. Journal of Marketing Management,

17(3-4), 429-453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.001

Siefert, C. J., Kothuri, R., Jacobs, D. B., Levine, B., Plummer, J., & Marci, C. D. (2009).

Winning the Super "buzz" Bowl. Journal of Advertising Research, 49(3). 293-302.

DOI: 10.2501/S0021849909090424

Slater, M. D., & Rouner, D. (2002). Entertainment-Education and elaboration likelihood:

Understanding the processing of narrative persuasion. Communication Theory,

12(2), 173-191. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2002.tb00265.x

Smith, A. (2017). Pepsi pulls controversial Kendall Jenner ad after outcry. NBCBLK.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/pepsi-ad-kendall-jenner-echoes-black-lives-

matter-sparks-anger-n742811

Spears, S. (2018, Jan 10). On this date, Wendy's first asked "where's the beef?". Tampa

Bay Times. https://www.tampabay.com/blogs/80s/2018/01/10/on-this-date-wendys-

first-asked-wheres-the-beef/

Stein, S. R. (2002). The '1984' Macintosh ad: cinematic icons and constitutive rhetoric in

the launch of a new machine. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 88(2), 169-192. DOI:

10.1080/00335630209384369

Stern, B. B. (1994). Classical and vignette television advertising dramas: Structural

models, formal analysis, and consumer effects. Journal of Consumer Research,

20(4), 601-615. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2489762

The Drum. (2016). 2002: Verizon makes "can you hear me now?" guy an integral part of

the brand's marketing efforts. The Drum.

https://www.thedrum.com/news/2016/06/08/marketing-moment-70-verizon-makes-

can-you-hear-me-now-guy-integral-part-brand-s

Thomas, L. (2018). Nike shares fall as backlash erupts over new ad campaign featuring

Colin Kaepernick. cnbc.com: CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/04/nike-

shares-tumble-after-company-reveals-new-ad-campaign-featuring-colin-

kaepernick.html

Tillman, L. (n.d.). Case study: PepsiCo & Kendal Jenner's controversial commercial.

astute.com https://astute.co/pepsi-kendall-jenner-commercial/

Tomkovick, C., Yelkur, R., & Christians, L. (2001). The USA's biggest marketing event

keeps getting bigger: an in-depth look at Super Bowl advertising in the 1990s.

Journal of Marketing Communications, 7(2), 89-108. DOI:

10.1080/13527260121725

Toppano, E., & Roberto, V. (2017). Semiotic annotation of narrative video commercials:

Bridging the gap between artifacts and ontologies. International Journal on

Advances in Internet Technology, 10(3&4), 145-162.

http://hdl.handle.net/11390/1125014

Tsfati, Y. (2011). Media effects. DOI: 10.1093/OBO/9780199756841-0081

USA Today. (2020). 2020 Ad Meter results. https://admeter.usatoday.com/results/2020

van Lissa, C. J., Caracciolo, M., van Duuren, T., & van Leuveren, B. (2016). Difficult

empathy: The effect of narrative perspective on readers’ engagement with a first-

person narrator. Diegesis, 5(1), 43-62. http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-8508224

Wang, R. W. Y., Chang, Y., & Chuang, S. (2016). EEG spectral dynamics of video

commercials: impact of the narrative on the branding product preference. Scientific

Reports, 6(1). DOI: 10.1038/srep36487

Wells, W. D. (1989). Lectures and dramas. Cognitive and Affective Responses to

Advertising. 13-20.

Yahoo! Finance. (n.d.). NIKE, Inc. (NKE). Yahoo! Finance:

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/NKE/

Yelkur, R., Tomkovick, C., & Traczyk, P. (2004). Super Bowl advertising effectiveness:

Hollywood finds the games golden. Journal of Advertising Research, 44(1), 143-

159. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021849904040085

Zielske, H. A. (1982). Does day-after recall penalize "feeling" ads? Journal of

Advertising Research, 22(1), 19-22. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1982-22306-001

i Bitable, The best commercial ads of all time, ever, (n.d.), https://biteable.com/blog/best-commercials/ ii considerable, 35 of the most memorable commercials in TV history, (2020), https://www.considerable.com/entertainment/tv/most-memorable-television-commercials/ iii Quality Logo Products Blog, The 10 Greatest TV Commercials of All Time, (2020), https://www.qualitylogoproducts.com/blog/10-memorable-tv-commercials/ iv The Empire, The 101 Best Commercials of All Time, (2020), https://theempire.com/101-best-tv- commercials-of-all-time/ v The Pioneer Woman, The 25 Best Super Bowl Commercials of All Time to Watch Before the Big Game,

(2021), https://www.thepioneerwoman.com/news-entertainment/a35093628/best-super-bowl-commercials/ vi Jameson Irish Whiskey, “Fire,” (2012), https://Clios.com/awards/winner/film/fire-7106 vii Troy, Michigan Public Library, “Book Burning Party,” (2012), https://clios.com/awards/winner/content- contact/book-burning-party-7280 viii Bing, “Decode Jay-Z,” (2011), https://clios.com/awards/winner/integrated-campaign/decode-jay-z-with- bing-9135 ix Google, “Demo Slam: Chubby Bunny,” (2011), https://clios.com/awards/winner/film/google-demo-slam- chubby-bunny-13745 xIBM, “Watson,” (2011), https://clios.com/awards/winner/content-contact/watson-9496 xi Alka-Seltzer, “Mama Mia Spicy Meatballs,” (1969), https://youtu.be/JsnU8sEg3T0 xii Budweiser, “Wassup?!,” (1999), https://youtu.be/JJmqCKtJnxM xiii Honda, “Paper,” (2016), http://winners.americanadvertisingawards.com/awards2016/gold/page54/ xiv Nike, “Dream Crazier,” (2019), https://www.wk.com/work/nike-dream-crazier/ xv Old Spice, “The Man Your Man Could Smell Like,” (2010), https://youtu.be/owGykVbfgUE xvi FedEx, “Enchanted Forest,” (2012), https://Clios.com/awards/winner/film/enchanted-forest-7693 xvii Bosch, “Like a Bosch,” (2019), https://youtu.be/v2kV6pgJxuo xviii Gillette, “Handle with Care,” (2017), https://Clios.com/awards/winner/branded-content/gillette/handle- with-care-20037

xix Great American Soups, “The Big Production,” (1970), https://youtu.be/dfK_iFwVECc xx Volkswagen, “The Force,” (2011), https://Clios.com/awards/winner/film/the-force-9163 xxi Doritos, “Goat for Sale,” (2013), https://youtu.be/DoM6IhfY8No xxii Shake ‘N Bake, “Ann B. Davis,” (1981), https://youtu.be/oeQ2tgNtM3U xxiii Apple, “1984,” (1984), https://youtu.be/2zfqw8nhUwA xxiv Axe, “Susan Glenn,” (2013), https://Clios.com/awards/winner/film/susan-glenn-5277 xxv Saturn, “Sheet Metal.” (2013), https://youtu.be/qy3XGWk0uyY xxvi Puma, “After Hours Athlete,” (2011) https://Clios.com/awards/winner/film/after-hours-athlete-8793 xxvii GE, “Ideas,” (2015), http://winners.americanadvertisingawards.com/awards2015/page3/page72/ xxviii Microsoft, “Be the One,” (2020), https://adage.com/video/microsoft-be-one-katie-sowers-surface xxix The New York Times, “Perseverance,” https://Clios.com/awards/winner/film/the-new-york-times/the- truth-is-worth-it-perseverance-60880 xxx Chipotle, “Back to the Start,” (2019), https://Clios.com/awards/winner/film/back-to-the-start-8021 xxxi Jim Beam, “Parallels,” (2012), https://Clios.com/awards/winner/film/parallels-7377 xxxii Gillette, “We Believe: The Best a Man Can Be,” (2019), https://youtu.be/koPmuEyP3a0 xxxiii P&G, “Best Job,” (2013), https://Clios.com/awards/winner/film/best-job-5665 xxxiv Budweiser. “Puppy Love,” (2014), https://youtu.be/dlNO2trC-mk xxxv Sandy Hook Promise, “Evan,” (2017), https://Clios.com/awards/winner/branded-content/sandy-hook- promise/evan-29841 xxxvi March for Our Lives, “Generation Lockdown,” (2019), https://Clios.com/awards/winner/social- media/march-for-our-lives/generation-lockdown-73501 xxxvii Doritos, “#NowitsHot,” (2020), https://youtu.be/NvIcPAxZ39o xxxviii Google, “Dear Sophie,” (2010), https://Clios.com/awards/winner/film/dear-sophie-7200 xxxix Extra, “Origami,” (2013), https://youtu.be/La3b_1F8h_4 xl Reebok, “Terry Tate, Office Linebacker,” (2003), https://youtu.be/Kg5cdZ-Fnpc xli Skittles, “Piñata,” (2009), https://Clios.com/awards/winner/television-cinema-digital/pinata-11336 xlii Got Milk?, “Aaron Burr,” (1993), https://Clios.com/awards/winner/hall-of-fame/aaron-burr-11948

xliii Viagra, “Antiquing,” (2010), https://Clios.com/awards/winner/television-cinema-digital/antiquing-

10059 xliv Tide, “It’s a Tide Ad,” (2018), https://Clios.com/awards/winner/film/tide/it-s-a-tide-ad-41433 xlv Luv’s, “New Kid,” (2010), https://Clios.com/awards/winner/television-cinema-digital/new-kid-10601 xlvi Old Spice, “Momsong,” (2014), https://Clios.com/awards/winner/film/momsong-60-3113 xlvii Alka-Seltzer, “I Can’t Believe I Ate the Whole Thing,” (1972), https://youtu.be/VFKifpMtlNs xlviii Samsung, “Ostrich,” (2017), https://Clios.com/awards/winner/film/samsung/ostrich-23201 xlix Avocados from Mexico, “First Draft Ever,” (2016), http://winners.americanadvertisingawards.com/awards2016/gold/page95/ l Doritos, “The Cool Ranch,” (2020), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7zBpfYEMpo li Bud Light, “Joust,” (2021), https://Clios.com/awards/winner/partnerships-collaborations/hbo/game-of- thrones-joust-71068 lii Dunkin’ Donuts, “Time to Make the Donuts,” (1982), https://youtu.be/petqFm94osQ liii Snickers, “Hungry Betty White,” https://youtu.be/c4WorCP_D9s liv Hyundai, “Smaht Pahk,” (2020), https://adage.com/video/hyundai-smaht-pahk lv Wendy’s, “Where’s the Beef?,” (1984), https://youtu.be/Ug75diEyiA0 lvi Verizon Wireless, “Test Man Launch,” (2002), https://youtu.be/OPwPo-IAQ-E lvii Verizon, “I Got Verizon,” (2016), https://www.ispot.tv/ad/AKtx/verizon-i-got-verizon-featuring-jamie- foxx lviii SunnyD, “Rollerblade,” (2016), http://winners.americanadvertisingawards.com/awards2016/gold/page97/ lix Snickers, “Brady Bunch,” (2016), http://winners.americanadvertisingawards.com/awards2016/gold/page112/ lx HP, “Awaken Your Force,” (2016), https://Clios.com/awards/winner/film-technique/hewlett- packard/awaken-your-force-13193 lxi Heineken, “Hero,” (2016) https://Clios.com/awards/winner/film-technique/heineken/hero-13549

lxii Dos Equis, “The Most Interesting Man: Amazon,” (2011), https://Clios.com/awards/winner/film/amazon-8938 lxiii Old Spice, “Dadsong,” (2015) https://Clios.com/awards/winner/film/old-spice/dadsong-140 lxiv EA Sports, “Madden: The Movie,” (2016), http://winners.americanadvertisingawards.com/awards2016/gold/page53/ lxv Axe, “Sporty,” (2013), https://Clios.com/awards/winner/film/sporty-5182 lxvi Donate Life, “The World’s Biggest Asshole,” (2017) https://Clios.com/awards/winner/film/donate- life/the-world-s-biggest-asshole-17052 lxvii Monster.com, “When I Grow Up,” (1999), https://youtu.be/myG8hq1Mk00 lxviii Tempur-Pedic, “Bear,” (2014), http://winners.americanadvertisingawards.com/awards2014/gold/page35/3.html lxix Nike, “Dream Crazy,” (2018). https://www.wk.com/work/nike-dream-crazy/ lxx SalesGenie.com, “Chinese Pandas,” (2008), https://youtu.be/inB4uInnf4U lxxi Mountain Dew, “Police Lineup,” (2013), https://youtu.be/8nghfsKEgzk lxxii Miller Lite, “Catfight,” (2003), https://youtu.be/82BNBwck8Zs lxxiii Peloton, “The Gift that Gives Back,” (2019), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijof8uw4OHs lxxiv Holiday Inn, “Bob Johnson,” (1997), https://youtu.be/0FhjgxjAJxU lxxv Snickers, “Mechanic’s Kiss,” (2007), https://youtu.be/h8XbTsbkwII lxxvi General Motors, “Suicidal Robot,” (2007), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjGuRnPlG10 lxxvii Hyundai, “Pipe Job,” (2013), https://youtu.be/jgffnYlAe9c lxxviii Quizno’s, “Toasty Torpedo,” (2009), https://youtu.be/qbMd0yEXt0A lxxix Pepsi, “Jump In,” (2017), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9x15lR9VIg lxxx Groupon, “Tibet,” (2011), https://youtu.be/vVkFT2yjk0A lxxxi McDonald’s, “Signs,” ( https://www.ispot.tv/ad/7HKU/mcdonalds-signs-song-by-fun lxxxii Nationwide, “Boy,” (2020), https://youtu.be/ko2OLSA-npc

Appendices

62 Appendix A

Results Tables

Table A1

Results: Narrative Features

Total* Total* Total (Awards) (Listicles) (Combined)** Temporality 57 (77%) 65 (87%) 117 (81%) Causality 68 (92%) 63 (84%) 128 (89%) Character 62 (84%) 69 (92%) 127 (88%) *Adjusted to exclude repeats within Awards or Listicles. **Adjusted for repeats in both categories (Awards and Listicles).

Table A2

Results: Narrative Advertisement Types

Total* Total* Total (Awards) (Listicles) (Combined)** Slice of Life 13 (18%) 13 (9%) 25 (17%) Vignette 13 (18%) 10 (20%) 22 (15%) Story 16 (22%) 11 (19%) 27 (19%) Narrative/Drama 32 (43%) 41 (52%) 70 (49%) *Adjusted to exclude repeats within Awards or Listicles. **Adjusted for repeats in both categories (Awards and Listicles).

Appendix A (continued)

Table A3

Results: Appeal Type

Total* Total* Total (Awards) (Listicles) (Combined)** Familiar 11 (15%) 4 (5%) 15 (10%) Relatable 6 (8%) 3 (4%) 9 (6%) Inspirational 14 (19%) 15 (20%) 26 (18%) Emotional 17 (23%) 8 (11%) 23 (16%) Humorous 32 (43%) 48 (64%) 75 (52%) *Adjusted to exclude repeats within Awards or Listicles. **Adjusted for repeats in both categories (Awards and Listicles).

Table A4

Results: Secondary Appeal

Total* Total* Total (Awards) (Listicles) (Combined)** Character/Spokesperson 14 (19%) 39 (52%) 51 (35%) Catchphrase 1 (1%) 4 (5%) 5 (3%) Nostalgia 7 (9%) 4 (5%) 8 (6%) *Adjusted to exclude repeats within Awards or Listicles. **Adjusted for repeats in both categories (Awards and Listicles).

Appendix C Globular Venn Diagram: Mind Mapping Phase Early Appeal Types