Please wait a minute...
心理学报  2018, Vol. 50 Issue (6): 678-692    DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00678
     研究报告 本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
强势品牌广告竞争的溢出效应
晋向东1,2,张广玲1(),曹晶4,谷传华3(),魏华5,谢志鹏6,段朝辉3
1 武汉大学经济与管理学院, 武汉 430072
2 华中师范大学人文社会科学高等研究院, 武汉 430079
3 华中师范大学心理学院, 武汉 430079
4 湖北大学发展规划处, 武汉 430062
5 信阳师范学院教育科学学院, 河南 信阳 464000
6 中南财经政法大学工商管理学院, 武汉 430073
Spillover effects of strong brands competition
Xiangdong JIN1,2,Guangling ZHANG1(),Jing CAO4,Chuanhua GU3(),Hua WEI5,Zhaohui DUAN6, 3
1 Economics and Management School, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, China
2 Institute for Advanced Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences, Central China Normal University, Wuhan 430079, China
3 School of Psychology, Central China Normal University, Wuhan 430079, China
4 Development and Planning Office, Hubei University, Wuhan 430062, China
5 College of Education Science, Xinyang Normal University, Xinyang 464000, China
6 School of Business and Administration, Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, Wuhan 430073, China
全文: PDF(492 KB)   HTML 评审附件 (1 KB) 
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)       背景资料
文章导读  
摘要 

本研究探讨同一品类两个强势品牌广告竞争对弱势品牌产生的影响, 研究尝试将广告重复、广告长度作为操控广告竞争强度的具体手段, 运用感知到的广告竞争水平来表示广告竞争强度。研究结果表明, 同一品类两个品牌同时进行广告重复的水平不同, 可以导致被试感知到的广告竞争水平有显著差异, 广告重复次数越多, 被试感知到的广告竞争强度越高, 广告长度对感知到的广告竞争作用不显著。研究同时发现:随着两个强势品牌广告竞争强度的提高, 消费者对弱势品牌的品牌态度降低, 这表明强势品牌广告竞争对弱势品牌具有溢出效应。另外, 研究还发现产品涉入度和产品属性相似性对强势品牌广告竞争的溢出效应具有调节作用, 涉入度低的产品和属性相似性高的产品溢出效应更大。本研究丰富了溢出效应理论, 增加了溢出效应类别, 同时对同一品类内部的广告实践具有重要的指导意义。

服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
晋向东
张广玲
曹晶
谷传华
魏华
谢志鹏
段朝辉
关键词 广告重复广告长度溢出效应产品涉入度产品属性相似性    
Abstract

Although there are many studies focusing on competitive advertising, brand advertising, category advertising, advertising clutter, and advertising interference, there has been little research focusing on strong brands competition. The extent literature focuses on Product Crisis Spillover Effect, Umbrella Branding Spillover Effect, Advertising Spillover Effect, and Corporate Social Responsibility Reputation Spillover Effect. However, what is the spillover effect for competition taking place among strong brands on weak brands? What will happen to the weak brands when two strong brands competing in the same category? Is it explained by the spillover effect theory? And what is the mechanism? These are a series of interesting questions that have both theoretical and practical value.

A total of 855 college students (mean age = 22.6 years, SD = 3.4 years) participated in the experiments. First, advertising repetition and advertising length were used as the stimuli indicating competition strength, and perceived competition was used to represent competition strength. Then, the following focus question was investigated: will there be spillover effect on weak brands when two strong brands competing in the same category? Finally, the moderating role of product involvement and product attribute similarity for the main effect was tested. Experimental methods were adopted in these studies and fictitious brands were used to test the research hypotheses.

The results of the present study indicates that, advertising repetition is closely related to perceived competition, and the more repetitions of two brand advertisements, the higher the competition level perceived by the subjects is, which indicated that advertising repetition can be used as a specific means of operating the advertising competition. However, the advertisement length has no effect on the perceived competition. Strong brand advertising competition has a spillover effect on weak brands. With the increase in the competition strength of strong brand advertising, the spillover effect on weak brands has also increased accordingly. The degree of product involvement and similarity of product attributes have a moderating effect on the main effect, and the lower product involvement and the higher similarity of product attributes tended to produce the greater spillover effect.

The current study enriches the existing spillover theory and discovered the spillover effect of strong brand advertising competition within the same category on weak brands for the first time. At the same time, the study found that the product involvement and product attribute similarities have a moderating effect on the spillover effect. The conclusions of the research can be used to guide advertising practice and brand owners and market managers in different market positions.

Key wordsadvertising repetition    advertising length    spillover effects    product involvement    product attribute similarity
收稿日期: 2017-06-27      出版日期: 2018-04-28
ZTFLH:  B849: F713.55  
通讯作者: 张广玲,谷传华     E-mail: g1zhang@whu.edu.cn;502774209@qq.com
作者简介: 晋向东为第一作者|张广玲为第一作者,华中师范大学与武汉大学均为第一署名单位,排名不分先后。
引用本文:   
晋向东,张广玲,曹晶,谷传华,魏华,谢志鹏,段朝辉. 强势品牌广告竞争的溢出效应[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(6): 678-692.
Xiangdong JIN,Guangling ZHANG,Jing CAO,Chuanhua GU,Hua WEI,Zhaohui DUAN, . Spillover effects of strong brands competition. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(6): 678-692.
链接本文:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00678      或      http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/Y2018/V50/I6/678
  研究框架图
因变量 强势品牌广告竞争强度(重复次数) F(2,79) p η2
1次(n = 25) 3次(n = 29) 5次(n = 28)
M SD M SD M SD
感知到的竞争 6.67 3.07 8.55 1.78 10.64 2.30 17.28 0.01 0.30
翰洋手机品牌态度 3.95 0.81 3.34 0.88 2.69 0.56 19.33 0.001 0.33
  广告竞争与弱势品牌的品牌态度的描述性统计
强势品牌竞争强度 低度(重复1次) (n = 46) 中度(重复3次) (n = 53) 高度(重复5次) (n = 57)
M SD M SD M SD
弱势品牌态度 涉入度高 3.65 0.86 3.94 0.71 3.46 0.61
涉入度低 3.69 0.96 3.49 0.89 3.04 0.78
  广告竞争和产品涉入度对品牌态度影响的描述性统计
因变量 变异来源 df F p η2
弱势品牌态度 广告竞争强度 2 6.71 0.00 0.08
涉入程度 1 5.42 0.021 0.03
广告竞争强度×涉入程度 2 7.31 0.00 0.86
  广告竞争和产品涉入度对弱势品牌态度的方差分析
  产品涉入度和强势品牌广告竞争强度对于弱势品牌态度的交互作用
强势品牌广告竞争强度 低度(重复1次) (n = 51) 中度(重复3次) (n = 52) 高度(重复5次) (n = 48)
M SD M SD M SD
弱势品牌态度 相似性高 3.37 0.78 3.19 0.95 2.92 0.75
相似性低 3.73 0.63 3.46 0.89 3.10 0.78
  广告竞争和产品属性相似性对品牌态度影响的描述统计
因变量 变异来源 df F p η2
品牌态度 广告竞争强度 2 4.21 0.017 0.05
相似程度 1 20.85 0.00 0.12
广告竞争强度×相似程度 2 5.57 0.00 0.07
  广告竞争和产品属性相似性对弱势品牌态度的方差分析
  产品相似性和强势品牌广告竞争强度对弱势品牌态度的交互作用
[1] Agasisti, T., & Murtinu S . ( 2012). ‘Perceived’ competition and performance in Italian secondary schools: New evidence from OECD—PISA 2006. British Educational Research Journal, 38(5), 841-858.
[2] Ahluwalia R., Unnava H. R., & Burnkrant R. E . ( 2001). The moderating role of commitment on the spillover effect of marketing communications. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 458-470.
[3] Anderson E. T., & Simester D . ( 2013). Advertising in a competitive market: The role of product standards, customer learning, and switching costs. Journal of Marketing Research, 50, 489-504.
[4] Bagwell, K. ( 2005). The economic analysis of advertising. Working Paper. Department of Economics, Columbia University.
[5] Birkinshaw J., Hood N., & Jonsson S . ( 1998). Building firm-specific advantages in multinational corporations: The role of subsidiary initiative. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 221-241.
[6] Bornstein, R. F . ( 1989). Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research: 1968-1987. Psychological Bulletin, 106(2), 265-289.
[7] Clarke, D. G . ( 1973). Sales-advertising cross-elasticities and advertising competition. Journal of Marketing Research, 10(3), 250-261.
[8] Collins A. M., & Elizabeth F. L . ( 1975). A spreading activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82(6), 407-428.
[9] Dahlén M., & Lange F . ( 2006). A disaster is contagious: How a brand in crisis affects other brands. Journal of Advertising Research, 46(4), 388-397.
[10] Dai Q., & Liang L . ( 2011). An empirical study on one-sided vs two-sided advertising' s Repetition Effects. Chinese Journal of Management, 8(4), 544-551.
[ 代祺, 梁樑 . ( 2011). 单面与双面信息广告重复效应的实证研究. 管理学报, 8(4), 544-551.]
[11] Dawar N., & Pillutla M. M . ( 2000). Impact of product-harm crises on brand equity: The moderating role of consumer expectations. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(2), 215-226.
[12] Erdem T., & Sun B. H . ( 2002). An empirical investigation of the spillover effects of advertising and sales promotions in umbrella branding. Journal of Marketing Research, 39, 408-420.
[13] Fan B. C., Yang Y., & Li W . ( 2014). The impact of product harm crisis attributes on the horizontal spillover effect: the moderating effect of product similarity and corporate reputation. Journal of Business Economics, 277(11), 21-30.
[ 范宝财, 杨洋, 李蔚 . ( 2014). 产品伤害危机属性对横向溢出效应的影响研究——产品相似性和企业声誉的调节作用. 商业经济与管理, 277(11), 21-30.]
[14] Fang Z., Yang Y., Li W., & Cai J . ( 2013). The spillover effect of product harm crisis: how to resolve product harm crisis triggered by others. Nankai Business Review, 16(6), 19-27.
[ 方正, 杨洋, 李蔚, 蔡静 . ( 2013). 产品伤害危机溢出效应的发生条件和应对策略研究——预判和应对其它品牌引发的产品伤害危机. 南开管理评论, 16(6), 19-27.]
[15] Farr S. J., Tremblay C. H., & Tremblay V. J . ( 2001). The welfare effect of advertising restrictions in the U.S. cigarette industry. Review of Industrial Organization, 18(2), 147-160.
[16] Fei X. Z., Li C. W., & Zhou, S H . ( 2010). A study of corporate social responsibility reputation spillover effect. Management World, ( 4), 74-83.
[ 费显政, 李陈微, 周舒华 . ( 2010). 一损俱损还是因祸得福?——企业社会责任声誉溢出效应研究. 管理世界, ( 4), 74-83]
[17] Feldman J. M., & Lynch J. G . ( 1988). Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(3), 421-435.
[18] Goh Y. S., Chattaraman V., & Forsythe S . ( 2013). Brand and category design consistency in brand extensions. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 22(4), 272-285.
[19] Huang Z., & Wang X. X . ( 2015). Assortment structure, prior knowledge and brand choice. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 47(5), 663-678.
[ 黄赞, 王新新 . ( 2015). 商品陈列方式、先验品牌知识与品牌选择决策——弱势品牌的视角. 心理学报, 47(5), 663-678.]
[20] Hsee, C. K . ( 1998). Less is better: When low-value options are valued more highly than high-value options. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 11, 107-121.
[21] Hsee C. K., Loewen G. F., Blount S., & Bazerman M. H . ( 1999). Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options: A review and theoretical analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(5), 576-590.
[22] Interbrand. ( 2011). Brand strength. Institute for Interbrand, London, UK. From
[23] Janakiraman R., Sismeiro C., & Dutta S . ( 2009). Perception spillovers across competing brands: A disaggregate model of how and when. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(4), 467-481.
[24] Kalyanaram G., & Urban G. L . ( 1992). Dynamic effects of the order of entry on market share, trial penetration, and repeat purchases for frequently purchased consumer goods. Marketing Science, 11, 235-250.
[25] Lewis R., & Nguyen D . ( 2015). Display advertising’s competitive spillovers to consumer search. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 13(2), 93-115.
[26] Laurent, G. K . ( 1985). Measuring consumer involvement profiles. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(3), 9-18.
[27] Montgomery C. A., & Wernerfelt B . ( 1992). Risk reduction and umbrella branding. The Journal of Business, 65, 31-50.
[28] Mord M. S., & Gilson E . ( 1985). Shorter units: Risk- responsibility-reward. Journal of Advertising Research, 25(4), 9-19.
[29] Morgan, T A., & Veloutsou C . ( 2013). Beyond technology acceptance: Brand relationships and online brand experience. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 21-27.
[30] Newell S. J., & Henderson K. V . ( 1998). Super bowl advertising: Field testing the importance of advertisement frequency, length and placement on recall. Journal of Marketing Communications, 4(4), 237-248.
[31] Pechmann C., & Stewart D. W . ( 1988). Advertising repetition: A critical review of wearin and wearout. Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 11(1-2), 285-329.
[32] Petty R. E., Cacioppo J. T., & Schumann D . ( 1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 135-146.
[33] Reilly R. J., & Hoffer G. E . ( 1983). Will retarding the information flow on automobile recalls affect consumer demand. Economic Inquiry, 21(3), 444-447.
[34] Rethans A. J., Swasy J. L., & Marks L. J . ( 1986). Effects of television commercial repetition, receiver knowledge, and commercial length: A test of the two-factor model. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(1), 50-61.
[35] Roehm M. L., & Tybout A. M . ( 2006). When will a brand scandal spill over, and how should competitors respond?. Journal of Marketing Research, 43, 366-373.
[36] Singh S. N., & Cole C. A . ( 1993). The effects of length, content, and repetition on television commercial effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(1), 91-104.
[37] Siomkos G. J., & Kurzbard G . ( 1994). The hidden crisis in product-harm crisis management. European Journal of Marketing, 28(2), 30-41.
[38] Traylor, M. ( 1981). Product involvement and brand commitment. Journal of Advertising Research, 21(6), 51-56.
[39] Wang, X, Y. ( 2012). A review of spoillover effects from product crisis to competiting brands. Foreign Economics & Management, 34(2), 58-62.
[ 王晓玉 . ( 2012). 产品危机对危机品牌竞争对手的溢出效应研究述评与展望. 外国经济与管理, 34(2), 58-62.]
[40] Zhang F., Zou P., & Yu B . ( 2016). The impact of promotion price on the valuation of offer price: the moderating effect of product involvement. Management Review, 28(10), 141-152.
[ 张锋, 邹鹏, 于渤 . ( 2016). 附属产品促销定价对消费者价格评估的影响: 产品涉入度的调节作用. 管理评论, 28(10), 141-152.]
[41] Zhang, H, C .( 2002) . A dvertising competiton. Beijing: Press of Communication University of China.
[ 张海潮 . ( 2002). 广告竞争. 北京: 北京广播学院出版社.]
[1] 柳武妹, 雷亮, 李志远, 苏云, 黄晓治. 触摸, 还是不触摸? 先前触摸促进新产品接受[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(7): 782-792.
[2] 胡月, 王斌, 马红宇, 李改.  彩民命运控制与问题购彩的关系: 基于意义维持模型的视角[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(5): 549-557.
[3] 李巧, 刘凤军.  模糊产品展示对产品态度的影响机制[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(3): 349-357.
[4] 宫秀双, 蒋晶.  撞衫对消费者产品处置意向的 影响及其心理机制[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(3): 337-348.
[5] 李宝珠, 魏少木.  广告诉求形式对产品反馈的影响作用: 基于眼动的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(1): 69-81.
[6] 冯文婷, 汪 涛.  数字的力量:品牌中数字大小 对消费者态度的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(12): 1581-1589.
[7] 刘世雄, 毕晓培, 贺凯彬.  网络语言文案对广告注意和感知的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(12): 1590-1603.
[8] 王海忠, 范孝雯, 欧阳建颖.  消费者自我构念、独特性需求与 品牌标识形状偏好[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(8): 1113-1124.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
版权所有 © 《心理学报》编辑部
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发  技术支持:support@magtech.com.cn