强势品牌广告竞争的溢出效应

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00678

摘要/Abstract

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。

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 words: advertising repetition, advertising length, spillover effects, product involvement, product attribute similarity

中图分类号:

B849: F713.55

晋向东, 张广玲, 曹晶, 谷传华, 魏华, 谢志鹏, 段朝辉. (2018). 强势品牌广告竞争的溢出效应. 心理学报, 50(6), 678-692.

JIN Xiangdong, ZHANG Guangling, CAO Jing, GU Chuanhua, WEI Hua, DUAN Zhaohui, . (2018). Spillover effects of strong brands competition. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 50(6), 678-692.

图/表 8

参考文献 41

[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. doi: 10.1080/01411926.2011.588314 URL
[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. doi: 10.1509/jmkr.38.4.458.18903 URL
[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. doi: 10.1509/jmr.11.0538 URL
[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. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.106.2.265 URL
[7]	Clarke, D. G . ( 1973). Sales-advertising cross-elasticities and advertising competition. Journal of Marketing Research, 10(3), 250-261. doi: 10.2307/3149692 URL
[8]	Collins A. M., & Elizabeth F. L . ( 1975). A spreading activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82(6), 407-428. doi: 10.1037//0033-295X.82.6.407 URL
[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.] doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-3448.2013.06.003 URL
[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. doi: 10.1023/A:1007801608741 URL
[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] doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-5731-3_2 URL
[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. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.73.3.421 URL
[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. doi: 10.1108/JPBM-03-2012-0109 URL
[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. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199806)11:23.0.CO;2-Y URL
[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. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.125.5.576 URL
[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. doi: 10.1509/jmkr.46.4.467 URL
[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. doi: 10.1287/mksc.11.3.235 URL
[25]	Lewis R., & Nguyen D . ( 2015). Display advertising’s competitive spillovers to consumer search. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 13(2), 93-115. doi: 10.1007/s11129-015-9155-0 URL
[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. doi: 10.1086/296556 URL
[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. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.019 URL
[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. doi: 10.1080/135272698345780 URL
[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. doi: 10.1080/01633392.1988.10504936 URL
[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. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-7295.1983.tb00646.x URL
[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. doi: 10.2307/3151776 URL
[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. doi: 10.1509/jmkr.43.3.366 URL
[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. doi: 10.2307/3172516 URL
[37]	Siomkos G. J., & Kurzbard G . ( 1994). The hidden crisis in product-harm crisis management. European Journal of Marketing, 28(2), 30-41. doi: 10.1108/03090569410055265 URL
[38]	Traylor, M. ( 1981). Product involvement and brand commitment. Journal of Advertising Research, 21(6), 51-56. doi: 10.2307/2490880 URL
[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.]

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

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

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)
强势品牌竞争强度		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
弱势品牌态度	涉入度低	3.69	0.96	3.49	0.89	3.04	0.78

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)
强势品牌竞争强度		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
弱势品牌态度	涉入度低	3.69	0.96	3.49	0.89	3.04	0.78

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