Why you should measure advertising’s plausibility

Brands need to understand how advertising claims coexist with consumers’ underlying associations in order to produce effective creative that is believable and relevant, according to a trio of researchers.

Writing in the current issue of Admap, Ben Kozary, Michael Sankey and Ken Roberts of Australian research firm Forethought, outline a “Plausibility” measure which they claim “circumvents the limitations of traditional high-attention metrics and, in so doing, provides a clear hierarchy of derived (rather than self-stated) strategic priorities”.

“Simple bivariate measures of association,” they add, “cannot capture the dynamic and interrelated nature of brand attributes.”

Within a given category, the authors explain, consumers hold beliefs about the interrelatedness of different product and/or service attributes, based upon the underlying associations they have formed over time.

“If a brand offers a configuration of attributes which, from a consumer’s perspective, is unexpected, irrelevant, or otherwise unbelievable (e.g. a product that is positioned as being the highest quality, yet cheapest in its category), this may result in cognitive dissonance, leading to a rejection of the message being presented and, ultimately, a reduced likelihood of purchase.”

And when that happens, the costs may extend further than the campaign itself to include the generation of potentially damaging associations for the brand, such as reduced credibility and trustworthiness.

Read more from WARC.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


%d bloggers like this: