THOMAS J. REYNOLDS A STRATEGIC AND CHARLES GENGLER FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING : THE ANIMATIC vs. FINISHED ISSUE dvertising expenditures process, at the animatic stage of for individual firms, par- copy development. Aticularly consumer goods firms, continue to increase, rep- Background resenting a significant portion of revenues. For example, in 1988 Many methods of assessing Philip Morris became the first the effectiveness (or quality) of single company to crack the 2 advertising have been advocated billion dollar mark for annual and implemented. Yuspeh advertising expenditures (Endi- {PACT, 1982) presented the cott, 1989). The immensity of views of a group of the leading these annual commitments to THOMAS J. REYNOLDS o advertising agencies on the topic professor of and advertising expenditures reflect of advertising copy testing. Of direcior of Ihe Morris Hile the importance which industry Center for Marketing Science the nine principles which were al the University of Texas at places upon the role of advertis- the consensus of these views, Dalias Dr Reynolds also ing in the marketing process. serves as chairman of Strate- the preeminent, first principle gic Assessment, Inc and as The management of this critical cited is that "A good copy test- managing director of Rich- marketing function demands mont Partners, a private mer- ing system provides measure- chant bank that the maximal efficiency, or ments which are relevant to the strategic quahty, be sought. objectives of the advertising" Current trends indicate that (PACT, 1982). Along this vein, one area in which firms are ag- Seggev (1982) suggests that gressively seeking to better man- ". . . the primary goal of adver- age their television advertising tising is to effect positioning." expenditures is by evaluation of Thus, if positioning is the pri- ads at earlier stages of the pro- mary goal of advertising, then a duction process through the use major component of the evalua- of rough prototypes of the fin- tion of copy should therefore be ished advertisements, termed the assessment of the strategic animatics, photomatics, or steal- positioning message communi- a-matics (Bunish, 1987). Since cated, reflecting its strategic the average production cost of a quality. television commercial usually At present, a majority of copy CHARLES GENGLER is an ranges from $250,000 to $500,000 is assessed after the final stage assistant professor of market- ing at Clarkson University. He (compared to less than $10,000 of production. Obviously, sev- received his Ph D in man- for the animatic production), the eral aspects of the communica- agement science from the University ot Texas at Dallas. reduction of expenditures on tion process are all at question ineffective advertisements repre- simultaneously at this point. The sents a goal, early on in the cre- advertisement must gain an au- ative process, by which the goal dience's attention and must of maximal efficiency can be for- communicate the desired mes- mally investigated. Of primary sage to the consumers which interest, then, is how the com- they will remember. Measures of plex concept of advertising effi- whether or not a particular as- ciency, or strategic quality, can pect of the message was deliv- be assessed early in the creative ered or whether the ad was re-

Journal of —OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 1991 61 STRATEGIC FKAMKWORK

judgment of quality of the con- linked to individuals' percep- . . . advertisements should tent of the communication, re- tions of the type of people they flecting the extent to which a feel use those products. Another be assessed to monitor the desired positioning was ob- related model of meaning was degree to which they tained. Dual research issues presented by Cohen (1979), who emerge: (1) specify a theoretical- linked product attributes to communicate the desired ly sound framework for the as- "valued outcomes." Similarly, positioning, . . . sessment of advertising strategy; Chattopadhyay and Alba (1988) and (2) assess the correspon- studied levels of abstraction in dence of the analysis of the stra- cognitions generated from adver- membered typify traditional tegic message represented in an- tising, ranging from "Factual copy testing research methodolo- imatics with respect to analysis Details" through "Single-Fact gies. However, these types of of the message communicated in Interpretations," "Abstractions/' research methods often ignore the final production. to "Global Evaluations." Seeking the specific, strategically-based a more comprehensive research positioning content of the mes- Defining paradigm, means-end theory sage. The fact that no a priori (Gutman, 1982) proposes a struc- framework of strategic position- Advertising Strategy tural viewpoint of meaning ing is utilized for the assessment Reynolds and Gutman (1984) based upon consumer cognitive forestalls any direct assessment describe advertising communica- categorization processes, which of the relative effectiveness of tion as "the set of meanings and are the essence of product differ- the execution or any systematic associations that serve to differ- entiation. contrasting of the quality of al- entiate a product or service from Means-end theory is based ternative executions. Clearly, its competition." With this in upon a persona! values orienta- advertisements should be as- mind, advertising strategy is tion (Rosenberg, 1956; Vinson, sessed to monitor the degree to simply defined as "the specifica- Scott, and Lamont, 1977; How- which they communicate the tion of the manner by which the ard, 1977), where personal val- desired positioning, or in other will be meaningfully dif- ues are the motivating "end- words, to assess how well these ferentiated by the target states of existence" which indi- messages deliver the intended consumer" (Reynolds and viduals strive for in their lives strategy. Following this argu- Rochon, 1991). A specific strat- (Rokeach, 1973). The core of an ment, Reynolds and Rochon egy, then, is the particular set of individual's self-concept can be (1991) state; meanings and associations viewed as a bundle of values linked to the brand, or cognitive (Homer and Kahle, 1988), which Standard copy testing meth- structure, which is being com- govern perception, memory, and ods adequately measure intru- municated. ultimately behavior. Products are siveness, be it known as re- Several structural viewpoints viewed as a schema of physical call, recognition or simple of communications, with respect attributes (see Peter and Olson, memorability of key copy to how meaning or cognitive 1987, for a comprehensive re- points. Standard copy testing structure is derived, have been view of this concept). Means- fails to measure, however, the proposed. Cartwright (1949) pro- end theory simply suggests that degree to which the desired posed a goal orientation in un- the way in which these physical strategy was communicated. derstanding motivational struc- attributes of products are linked It is proposed that the most ture communicated in advertis- to personal values of individuals consistent, and most important, ing. Young and Feigin (1975) is the manner by which products aspect of an advertisement presented the Grey Benefit gain personal relevance, essen- across all stages of production is Chain, which links physical tially, the manner in which the particular strategy-related traits of products to more per- meaning is established. Thus, a positioning message it contains. sonal "emotional payoffs," physical attribute of a product is Obviously, standard intrusive- which represent, similarly, the important only to the extent to ness measures, though impor- motives of the consumer. Con- which this attribute delivers a tant in their own right, are inap- sistent with the motivational ap- benefit or consequence to the plicable for animatics, as is any proach. Levy (1981) presented a consumer through the percep- related form of recall or recogni- structural perspective of product tion of product usage. The per- tion research. The strategic eval- meaning based on social struc- ceived consequence of product uation of animatics is primarily a ture in which products are

62 Journal of ADVERTISING RESEARCH—OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 1991 STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK

strategy specification. It is im- Table 1 portant to note that not all ads MECCAS Specification and Example are required to communicate at specification Example each of the strategic levels; rather, MECCAS represents a Driving Force (DF) framework which is broad The value orientation of the strategy; the Peace of Mind enough to deal with all types of end-level to be focused on in the Personal Security advertising. advertising strategic specification and assessment. Leverage Point (LP) The manner by which the advertising will "tap Care To illustrate how strategy can into, ' reach, or activate the value or Commitment to Positive Change be specified with MECCAS, a end-level of focus; the specific key way in Trust summary derived from an as- which the value is linked to the specific features of the product. sessment of telecommunications ads (Gengler and Reynolds, in Consumer Benefit (CB) press) is presented in Table 1. The major positive consequences for the Can Count on to Work consumer that are explicitly communicated, Make My Life Easier Note that the key strategic ele- verbally or visually, in the advertising. Save Time ments corresponding to the MECCAS definitions are speci- Message Element (ME) fied in the appropriate boxes. The specific attributes, consequences, or Uses New Technology features about the product that are Good Longstanding Reputation The blank box for EF represents communicated verbally or visually. Wide Selection of Products/Services the unique contribution of the , namely, the optimal executional story and/or usage, then, is important only to (see Table 1), predicated upon device to communicate and link the extent that this consequence Means-End theory, presents four together in an impactful way the is linked to another higher level, conceptual elements of an adver- four strategic elements. A strate- psychosocial consequence and, tising message which should be gic specification in this form, ultimately, to an individual's considered in strategy develop- then, indicates what the key personal value orientation. A ment and specification. In the meanings that are to be commu- technique known as laddering model. Message Elements refer nicated by the ads, which essen- {Reynolds and Gutman, 1988) to the differentiating physical tially defines how the telecom- has been demonstrated as a attributes of the product which munications product/company is methodology for eliciting from are communicated. Consumer going to be made personally rel- individuals what their individual Benefits are the direct conse- evant to the viewer. In a real- meaning structures are for a quences consumers could gain world environment, the specifi- product category defined by at- through product usage. Lever- cation would also include the tributes, consequences, and per- age Points are the ways in which relative strength desired at each sonal values. Essentially, ladder- the message taps into, or acti- respective level, thereby provid- ing provides the basis from vates, the individual's personal ing the marketing strategist the which an individual's cognitive value system. This level is often- ability to communicate to the structure can be obtained, in- times considered to reflect brand agency the particular area of fo- cluding both content and struc- personality traits of the product cus desired for the desired posi- tural components. The aggrega- which serve to provide the link tioning. Interestingly, the re- tion of ladders across a sample from the physical descriptors of sponsibility of the advertiser can of consumers, then, yields a rep- the product to the higher level be defined as one of developing resentative cognitive structure definers of "self." Driving and specifying a positioning for an entire product category. Forces, then, are the high-level strategy, while the dual respon- Following this theoretical per- value orientations, which define sibility of the advertising agency spective, a model to define the "self," communicated or acti- is to simultaneously provide the cognitive components of mean- vated by the ad. The final com- meanings desired as well as ing for advertising strategy has ponent of MECCAS, the Execu- maximizing the connections or been presented, termed the tional Framework (EF), is the associations between these MECCAS model (Olson and specification of the delivery vehi- meanings. Reynolds, 1983; Reynolds and cle for the four fundamental The MECCAS model has been Gutman, 1984; Reynolds and strategic components and, as used to assess strategic compo- Craddock, 1988). This model such, is not considered part of nents of specific advertisements

Journal of ADVERTISING RESEARCH—OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 1991 63 STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK

(Reynolds and Craddock, 1988). the assessment of advertising pattern was observed in the re- Reynolds and Trivedi (1989) quality from a strategic perspec- sults which indicates that for the studied the relationship between tive, both for finished as well as ads in which stronger contribu- components of the MECCAS animatic ads (Reynolds and tion from associations was model communicated and the Rochon, 1991). found, the affect generated for overall affect generated by the Recently, Gengler and Reyn- the brand by these ads was sys- ad in the snack-food product olds (in press) addressed both of tematically higher. category. In their research, sig- these issues in a new approach This basic finding with respect nificant correlations were found to assessing the meaning upon to the importance of the levels of between components of the which product positioning and abstraction in communication, as model and overall affect. Two advertising strategy is predi- represented by the MECCAS key omissions were made, how- cated. A separate construct was model, and the connections or ever, in design of the initial designed for brand affect gener- linkages between the strategic Reynolds and Trivedi (1989) ated by the ad and for affect for elements at the respective levels study. First, an aggregate affect the ad, and subject perceptions presents a unique opportunity to measure was used which com- of the associations communi- develop a new data presentation bined both ad affect and brand cated between the strategic com- format that summarizes both the affect, even though these have ponents of the advertisement relative strength of a given set of been demonstrated to be sepa- were gathered. Their findings strategic elements as well as the rate constructs (Mitchell and Ol- indicate that both the MECCAS myriad of potential connections son, 1981; Gresham and Shimp, components and the associations between adjacent levels. The op- 1985; MacKenzie, Lutz, and between components were portunity presented here is to Belch, 1986). Second, and of found to offer independent con- develop a data presentation equal importance, the Reynolds tributions to the prediction of framework that, in essence, pro- and Trivedi (1989) study concen- brand affect for ads in the tele- vides a complete summary of trated entirely on communica- communications category. The the cognitive elements and asso- tion of meanings at the levels of critical finding showed that the ciations activated by a given exe- MECCAS and ignored measures associations communicated be- cution. From the Gengler and of association between concep- tween strategic elements, Reynolds data, a diagrammatic tual meanings communicated in thought to be the basis of mean- model representation of the the ad. It is this latter point ing, were indeed related to affect strength of the communication which offers unique potential in for the brand. Furthermore, a of both the strategic elements

Figure 1 A Diagrammatic Representation of Key Strategic Eiements and Their Relevant Association Strengtlis for Finished Assessment: Ad A ,

Product/Service Affect Peace ot mind Finished Personal Security 51 DF 43 28 Care 73 4 Commitment to Positive 35 1 LP Change Trust 49

73 35 49 Can Count on to Work- 43 4 1 3 CB Make Life Easier- -39 3 2 1 Save Time -35 3 1 1

43 39 35 Uses New Technology 62 3 3 3 ME Good Longstanding 60 4 2 2 Reputation Wide Selection of 41 PR/Svcs

64 Journal of ADVERTISING RESEARCH—OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 1991 STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK

corresponding to levels of the and Ad B. The finished ads were MECCAS and the strength of the To date, virtually all very consistent with the animat- associations between each pair ics in terms of the similarity of of elements is developed. Figure research concerning scenes presented and accompa- 1 illustrates this new approach advertising strategy has been nying voiceover. A sample of 49 to summarize the sum of mean- performed upon subjects recruited under the ings communicated by an execu- same sample specifications as tion. finished copy. the sample from the finished In Figure 1, the key state- ads—from a geographic region ments reflecting the strategic ele- where the finished ads had not ments of each level of MECCAS tions communicated by a giv- been aired—was utilized, are presented along with the rel- en ad. thereby ensuring no previous ative strength of the communica- To date, virtually all research exposure to the finished ads. tion of that concept for each ad concerning advertising strategy Subjects were administered a (on a 0 to 100 scale). Note that has been performed upon fin- questionnaire in exactly the the stepwise presentation format ished copy. Significant savings same fashion as was performed necessary requires that the com- can be made, however, by per- in the original assessment of the munication strength of each ele- forming this type of critical anal- finished ads, a personal com- ment for the Consumer Benefit ysis earlier in the advertising puter-based procedure, termed (CB) and the Leverage Point (LP) production process. Animatics strata^" (which is an acronym for levels be presented twice for represent an opportunity for strategic assessment). This sys- ease of interpretation. For exam- such an instance of earlier analy- tem integrates a personal com- ple, the strategic CB concept of sis and have received a steady puter and a video cassette re- "dependability," summarized by pattern of increased attention corder such that the ads being "Can Count on to Work," scores and usage over the last decade assessed and the questions di- a 43, which is reported both in (Halliday, 1982; Laufer, 1986; rected to the subjects can be reference to the lower level Mes- Bunish, 1987). The primary re- shown alternately on the same sage Elements and the higher search question, then, is: To color monitor. Responses are level Leverage Points. The state- what degree do the meanings given verbally by subjects to a ments summarized in Figure 1 generated by an animatic corre- trained interviewer, who then represent the strongest strategic spond to those generated by the enters them into the computer. elements communicated in the finished ad? More specifically, The average amount of time re- specific ads assessed. the new summary format de- quired to complete the task, as- The three matrices of scores scribed above offers a framework sessing both ads, was 53 min- between the adjacent levels of for directly contrasting the ani- utes. MECCAS represent the degree matic analysis of meaning, Strata is designed to assess the of association (on a 0 to 9 scale) which serves as the basis for strategic communication effects between each pair of key strate- strategy specification, with the of advertising through imple- gic elements. To illustrate, for finished counterpart. A second, mentation of the MECCAS the ad represented in Figure 1, more fundamental, question is: model discussed earlier. Prior to the Message Element "Uses To what degree can this type of the initiation of a research study, New Technology" can be seen to strategic analysis be used to the key elements for the entire have a mean communication rat- make decisions, with respect to product/service category, usually ing of 62, and the Consumer which executional frameworks jointly obtained from the ladder- Benefit "Save Time" has a mean hold the most promise for com- ing process and a strategic re- communication rating of 35. The municating more effectively a view of competitive advertising, association communicated be- given strategy? are translated into statements tween these meanings has a rat- corresponding to the levels of ing strength of 3. Thus, al- Methodology abstraction prescribed in the though somewhat complex, this MECCAS format. An outline of data presentation format can be To address the basic research the presentation format of the seen to provide a complete and issues, animatics were obtained different types of questions is convenient summary across all for two of the finished telecom- detailed in Appendix A. Ran- the strategic elements and asso- munications ads analyzed by domization of questions within ciations which comprise the Gengier and Reynolds (in press), the question categories is per- meanings or relevant associa- hereafter referred to as Ad A formed.

Journal ot ADVERTISING RESEARCH—OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 1991 65 STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK

Figure 2 A Diagrammatic Representation of Key Strategic Eiements and Their Reievant Association Strengths for Animatic vs. Finished Assessment: Ad A

Product/Service Affect Peace of mind Animatic Finished Personal Security 47 51

Care Commitment to Positive Change LP 48 49 4 3 4 2

65 73

Can Count on to Work •45 43 Make Life Easier—40 39 Save Time—30 35

ME Good Longstanding Connections: Animatic A(1) Finished A(2) Reputation Wide Selection of- 'XX YY) Mean scores are significantiy different (p < .05). PR/Svcs

The scale utilized in strata for presented in the form of a probabilistically equal steps. assessing the strength of a spe- graphical scale using color-coded The primary quantitative out- cific strategic element has three Venn diagrams with differing put of the strata methodology, response options: (0) "does not degree of overlap between each the strength of communication apply," (60) "clearly applies," relevant pair of strategic eie- of the key strategic elements, and (100) "perfectly applies." ments (approximately 5 percent, and their pairwise strength of Pretesting was performed and 35 percent, and 75 percent, re- associations between adjacent the resulting scale point weights spectively). The resulting associ- levels can then be summarized were assigned. Of note is prior ations score is derived from a in the new stepwise data format research conducted by Reynolds multiplicative form of the three developed above. and Trivedi (1989) which scores (element /, element j, and showed little difference between their direct association measure a two-point and a five-point ij), which is rescaled using a Results scale in a similar study. The probabilistic function to a 0 to 9 scale utilized for the strength of scale. More specifically, the Following the previous Gen- association between key ele- scores for a given pair of state- gler and Reynolds research, this ments, defined as those which ments (/,;) representing adjacent study was concerned only with are endorsed as either "clearly" levels of MECCAS are multiplied potential differences in the mea- or "perfectly" applicable to de- by the score reflecting the sures of brand affect. The same scribing the specific ad, also has strength of connection (1, 2, or two statements, namely, "This three points: (1) "little," (2) 3). This multiplicand is then ad makes me feel even better "somewhat," and (3) "totally" scaled on a 0 to 9 scale with about using the product/service" connected. These questions are each increment corresponding to and "This ad makes me really

66 Journal of ADVERTISING RESEARCH—OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 1991 SIRATECIC FRAMEWORK

Figure 3 A Diagrammatic Representation of Key Strategic Elements and Their Reievant Association Strengths for Animatic vs. Finished Assessment: Ad B

Product/Service Affect Peace of mind Animatic Finished Personal Security 36 28 DF 20 22

Care 0 0

Commitment to Positive 0 0 Change LP Trust •30 29 2 0 0 0

55 61 30'29

Can Count on to Work' -30 27 2 2 2 2 2 1 CB Make Life Easier—23 17 2 0 1 0 1 0

Save Time—16 19 1 0 1 0 ; 0

30 27 23'17 16 19

Uses New Technology-(79^3) 3 3 (3~^^ 2 1 ME Good Longstanding—63 56 3 2 (£~o) ^ 0 Connections: Animatic B(1) Finished B(2) Reputation

Wide Selection of • [55 34) 1 Q (2 0") T 0 Mean scores are significantly different (p < .05). PR/Svcs want to get the product/service," animatic and finished execu- creased attention being paid to were used. The scores of these tions. This combined format per- the more concrete product-re- two statements across both ads mits straightforward contrasting lated aspects, stemming from yielded a Cronbach alpha reli- of the two independent research the lack of distraction from be- ability in the previous study findings. Differences in obtained coming involved in the story line with finished ads of .70 as com- scores between animatic and fin- of the finished execution. Said pared to .73 in this study with ished for the same ad are indi- another way, the viewer involve- animatics, indicating no signifi- cated by circles or ellipses ment with the story flow in the cant difference. (Of note is that around those significantly differ- finished execution causes the what are termed as brand-affect ent (t-test, p < .05). viewer to attend to more of the questions in this research para- Levei of Meaning. For both dynamic flow of information and digm closely resemble what ads assessed, the overall pattern images as opposed to the more many refer to as persuasion of scores between animatics and static "picture" approach exe- scores, possibly broadening the finished were quite similar, ex- cuted in animatics. As such, the interpretation of these findings cept for consistently stronger assessment of animatics will to persuasion-like scores.) scores at the Message Element probably result in more percep- For each of the two ads (A level. This difference, noted for tual emphasis on the concrete and B), stepwise summary rep- five of the six lower levei ele- aspects of product information resentations were constructed ments across both ads, was of the communication. (see Figures 2 and 3). These rep- likely due to the difference in At the higher levels, two sig- resentations differ in content executional format. That is, the nificant differences of the sixteen from Figure 1 in that they are reason animatics are scoring possible for both ads can be ob- comparative, containing scores higher at the Message Element served. For Ad A, "Commitment in the same format for both the level is apparently due to in- to Positive Change" at the LP

Journal of ADVERTISING RESEARCH—OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 1991 67 STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK

significantly different between positioning strategy, the stron- animatic and finished, suggest- ger communication of these key For both ads assessed, the ing that the network of cognitive strategic elements in combina- overall pattern of scores meanings may not be perfectly tion with the stronger set of as- between animatics and linear and stepwise in nature as sociations between levels, does proposed by the specification appear to suggest that the ani- finished were quite format of MECCAS. Different matic for Ad A offers signifi- similar, . . . networks of connections may cantiy more strategic quality po- well produce different types, tential. connections, or routes of mean- The research question of as- level scores significantly higher ing in producing persuasive sessing strategy or positioning in for the animatic (58) than for the communications. For Ad B, no this way strongly suggests that finished (35). The stronger ME significant differences in associa- an a priori specification of strat- communication may well ac- tions at the higher levels be- egy be made. The primary appli- count for this net result. Simi- tween animatic and finished cation of strategy assessment is larly, the LP element of "Care" were found. to determine to what degree a for Ad B is again more strongly Brand Affect. No statistically given animatic delivers against communicated by the animatic, significant differences {p < .05) the desired strategy. Desired 64 and 45, respectively. In total, were found between the animat- strategy, in this case, means pre- the scores for the strategic ele- ics and the finished ads. The determining the key strategy ele- ments on the higher levels do scale used to assess brand affect ments and their relative appear to correspond closely be- was the same three-point ordinal strengths. Secondarily, however, tween the animatic and finished scale as was utilized in the mea- the ability to assess the strength executions. surement of the strength of stra- of the connections "of Analysis of the differences in tegic elements. The brand-affect meanings" between and across the strength of associations is summary scores for Ad A were generally consistent with the virtually identical, 47 and 51, above findings: differences respectively. For Ad B, the ani- . . . strategy assessment is emerge at the lower levels. The matic scored 36 as opposed to a explanation is obvious. Given slightly lower score of 28 for the feasible at the animatic stage that the absolute magnitude of finished execution, again indicat- of copy development. the ME is significantly more ing little difference in the overall strongly communicated, the like- affect measures. lihood of making a connection to Decision-Making Vaiue. To key strategic elements presents a higher level elements is also sig- address the second research is- diagnostic that can serve the cre- nificantly increased. For Ad A, sue, namely, contrasting of alter- ative process, either in terms of two significant differences ap- native execution vehicles for the indicating a potential weakness pear, which, interesting for one same strategy at the animatic prior to final production, or, to of them ("Save Time" to stage with the purpose of decid- serve as reassurance that a par- "Care"), is not a result of a sig- ing which offers the most poten- ticular executional device does in nificant difference for either of tial to deliver the desired strat- fact deliver the desired linkage the strategic elements. This dif- egy. Figure 4 was constructed. or connection. ference cannot be readily ex- Contrasting of the summary Experience with the strata plained. However, the other dif- affect score, though not statisti- methodology with animatics ference for Ad A, "Can Count cally significant, does give the across a broad range of execu- on to Work" to "Commitment to animatic for Ad A a slight ad- tional types yields two basic Positive Change," appears con- vantage (47 versus 36). More im- findings. One, rarely do ads that sistent with the prior explana- portantly, the scores for Ad A do not have at least one strong tion, namely, the strength of the do significantly outscore Ad B connection between at least two lower level communication pro- on one element at each of the MECCAS levels generate signifi- duces potentially higher connec- four strategic levels: "Wide Se- cant affect for the brand (for tion scores to the higher levels. lection of Product/Services" both animatic and finished exe- With this specific example, how- (ME), "Make My Life Easier" cution). And two, the only real ever, the observed strength of (CB), "Trust" (LP), and "Per- differences that exist between communication for the statement sonal Security" (DF). Depend- animatic and finished occur only "Can Count on to Work" is not ing, of course, on the desired where the execution cannot (or

68 Journal of ADVERTISING RESEARCH—OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 1991 STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK

Figure 4 A Diagrammatic Representation of Key Strategic Elements and Their Reievant Association Strengths for a Comparison of Animatics: Ad A vs. Ad B

Product/Service Affect Peace of mind AnimatJc A Animatic B Personal Security 47 36 DF

Care •65 64

Commitment to Positive •58 55 Change

4 1 4 0

Can Count on to Work

CB Make Life Easier

Save Time —30 16

45 30(40 23^30 16

Uses New Technology-8r 79 (73^ 5 3 4 2 ME Good Longstanding — 80 63 ^2221 Connections: Animatic A(1) Animatic B(2) Reputation

Wide Selection of' 5 2 3 1 XX YY) Mean scores are significantiy different (p . .05). PR/Svcs has not) be(en) captured in the across the levels of meaning and early on in the advertising pro- animatic. For example, an execu- the strength of association or cess, thereby providing manage- tion that relies totally on bor- connection between adjacent lev- ment with a tool to assist in the rowed interest from a unique els of meaning in the same data development of effective, strate- aspect of a celebrity endorser is presentation. This format per- gically-sound executions. difficult to represent in animatic mits a comprehensive summari- The very nature of animatics, form and, as such, typically zation of the network of mean- however, does create a positive scores more strongly in the fin- ings communicated by a given bias in terms of the assessment ished form. piece of copy, either in animatic of concrete, product-attribute- or finished form. related strategic elements. The Summary The results of this study have static nature of an animatic, as demonstrated that strategy as- compared to its more dynamic This study developed a sum- sessment is feasible at the ani- finished counterpart, permits the mary assessment format, matic stage of copy develop- viewer to attend more fully to grounded in the cognitive as- ment. Both the strength of com- the basic product characteristics, pects of means-end theory and munication of the strategic thereby inflating the communica- the MECCAS model of advertis- elements and the associations tion scores on those elements, ing strategy specification, appli- between those meanings which and on their respective strength cable to both animatic and fin- subjects interpret from animatics of associations to the higher ished advertising. This assess- correspond, in general, closely level meanings. • ment format combines scores to those for the finished execu- indicative of both the strength of tions. This implies that a posi- References the communication elements tioning strategy can be assessed Bunish, Christine. "A Lot More

Journal ot ADVERTISING RESEARCH—OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 1991 69 STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK

Sophisticated: Commitment to Homer, Pamela M., and Lynn R. Advertising Strategy: A Case Animatics Growing." Back Stage, Kahle. "A Structural Equation Study." journal of Advertising Re- September 11, 1987. Test of the Value-Attitude-Be- search 28, 2 (1988): 43-54. havior Hierarchy." journal of Per- Cartwright, Dorwin. "Some sonality and Social Psychology 54, 4 , and Jonathan Gutman. Principles of Mass Persuasion." (1988): 638--16. "Advertising Is Image Human Relations 2, 3 (1949). 253- Management." Journal of Adver- 67. Howard, J. A. Consumer Behavior: tising Research 24, 1 (1984): 27-37. Application of Theory. New York: Chattopadhyay, Amitava, and McGraw-Hill Book Company, , and -. "Laddering Joseph Alba. "The Situationai 1977. Theory, Method, Analysis, and Importance of Recall and Infer- Interpretation." Journal of Adver- ence in Consumer Decision Laufer, Aliza. "Clients Press to tising Research 28, 1 (1988): 11-31. Making." journal of Consumer Re- Test: Many Factors Lead to search 15, 1 (1988): 1-12. Rise." Back Stage, March 28, , and John Rochon. 1986. "Means-End Based Advertising Cohen, Joel B. "The Structure of Research: Copy Testing is Not Product Attributes: Defining At- Levy, Sidney J. "Interpreting Strategy Assessment." journal of tribute Dimensions for Planning Consumer Mythology: A Struc- Business Research 22 (1991). and Evaluation." In Analytic Ap- tural Approach to Consumer proaches to Product and Marketing Behavior." Joimial of Marketing , and Minokshi Trivedi. Planning, Alan D. Shocker, ed. 45, 3 (1981): 49-61. "An Investigation of the Rela- Cambridge, MA: Marketing Sci- tionship between the MECCAS ence Institute, 1979. MacKenzie, Scott B.; Richard J. Model and Advertising Affect." Lutz; and George E. Belch. "The In Cognitive and Affective Re- Role of Attitude Toward the Ad Endicott, R. Craig. "Philip Mor- sponses to Advertising, Patricia as a Mediator of Advertising Ef- Cafferata and Alice Tybout, eds. ris ad spending muscles past $2 fectiveness: A Test of Competing billion." Advertising Age, Septem- Lexington, MA: Lexington Explanations." Journal of Market- Books, 1989. ber 27, 1989. ing Research 23, 2 (1986): 130^3.

Cengler, Charles E., and Thom- Mitchell, Andrew A., and Jerry Rokeach, Milton. The Nature of as J. Reynolds. "A Structural C. Olson. "Are Product At- Human Values. New York, NY: Model of Advertising Effects." tribute Beliefs the Only Mediator Free Press, 1973. In Advertising Exposure, Memory, of Advertising Effects on Brand and Choice, Andrew A. Mitchell, Attitude?" journai of Marketing Rosenberg, Milton. "Cognitive ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erl- Research 17, 3 (1981): 318-32. Structure and Attitudinal baum, in press. Effect." journal of Abnortnal and Olson, Jerry C, and Thomas J. Social Psychology 53, 3 (1956): Gresham, Larry G., and Terence Reynolds. "Understanding Con- 367-72.' A. Shimp. "Attitude Toward the sumers Cognitive Structures: Im- Advertisement and Brand Atti- plications for Advertising Seggev, Eli. "Testing Persuasion tudes: A Classical Conditioning Strategy." In Advertising and Con- by Strategic Positioning." Jourtial Perspective." Journal of Advertis- sumer Psychology, L. Percy and of Advertising Research 22, 1 ing 14, 1 (1985): 10-17. A. G. Woodside, eds. Lexington, (1982): 37-42. MA: Lexington Books, 1983. Gutman, Jonathan. "A Means Vinson, Donald E.; Jerome E. End Chain Model Based on Con- Peter, J. Paul, and Jerry Olson. Scott; and L. M. Lamont. "The sumer Categorization Process." Consumer Behavior: Marketing Role of Personal Values in Mar- journai of Marketing 46, 2 (1982): Strategy Perspectives. Homewood, keting and Consumer Behavior." 60-72. IL: Irwin, 1987. Journal of Marketing 41, 2 (1977): 44-50. Halliday, David Graham. "Test- Reynolds, Thomas J., and Alyce ing Thrives; So Do Animation Craddock. "The Application of Young, Shirley, and Barbara Fei- Houses in NY." Back Stage, Sep- the MECCAS Model to the De- gin. "Using the Benefit Chain tember 10, 1982. velopment and Assessment of for Improved Strategy

70 Journal of ADVERTISING RESEARCH—OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 1991 STRATEGIC FRAMtWORK

Formulation." Journal of Market- Appendix A ing 39, 3 (1975): 72-4. Summary of Components (20) of Strata Interviewing Methodology Part Strata intervievt^ing methodology Yuspeh, Sonia. " 'PACT. Posi- tioning Advertising Copy Test- 1. View Ad A. ing, A Consensus Credo Repre- 2. Qualitative Questions (e.g.. main point. ' etc.) senting the Views of Leading American Advertising Agen- 3. View Ad B. cies." journal of Advertising 11, 4 4. Qualitative Questions (e.g.. "main point,'• etc.) (1982): 1-29. 5. View Both Ads A and B. 6. Affect Statements (both Brand and Ad)." 7. Message Eiement Statements.*

8. Consumer Benefit Statements.' 9. View Both Ads A and B. 10. Executional Framework Statements."

11. Leverage Point Statements*

12- Driving Force Statements*

13. View Ad A. ARF

14. Ad A Connections for ME to CB."

15. Ad A Connections for CB to LP."

16. Ad A Connections for LP to DR."

17. View AdB.

18. Ad B Connections for ME to CB.** 19. Ad B Connections for CB to LP.** 20. Ad B Connections for LP to DF."

'Administration of two-step rating process. Step 1 involves answering a question to vi/hich ad(s) the statement applies, if any. Step 2 involves, for each ad that the statement was appli- cable, judging to what degree. " Administration of all adjacent levei pairs which were judged as applicable to the three-point Venn diagram scale reflective of degree of connectedness.

Journal oi ADVERTISING RESEARCH—OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 1991 71