a corporate advertising environmen

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________ Report Information from ProQuest June 05 2015 17:37 _______________________________________________________________

Document 1 of 1 Managing the brand in a corporate advertising environment: A decision-making framework for brand managers Author: Biehal, Gabriel J; Sheinin, Daniel A ProQuest document link Abstract (Abstract): Corporate advertising has become a significant business activity. That fact is important for brand managers because consumers’ knowledge formed from corporate advertising may influence the way they think about brands the company markets. Brand managers must understand how such potential influence may occur and manage it to their advantage. A study explores 4 key questions brand managers should consider in that context. Abstract: Corporate advertising has become a significant business activity. That fact is important for brand managers because consumers’ knowledge formed from corporate advertising may influence the way they think about brands the company markets. Brand managers must understand how such potential influence may occur and manage it to their advantage. A study explores 4 key questions brand managers should consider in that context. In presenting answers, the study integrates several literatures and proposes a conceptual framework with a set of research propositions. Finally, it describes general directions for future research. Full text: Headnote Corporate advertising has become a significant business activity. That fact is important for brand managers because consumers’ knowledge formed from corporate advertising may influence the way they think about brands the company markets. Brand managers must understand how such potential influence may occur and manage it to their advantage. The authors explore four key questions brand managers should consider in that context. In presenting answers, they integrate several literatures and propose a conceptual framework with a set of research propositions. Finally, they describe general directions for future research. One of the major challenges facing brand managers is to enhance brand knowledge and maximize brand performance within a marketing environment largely outside their control. The corporate advertising environment is also important. Corporate advertising is a substantial business activity, with expenditures now exceeding $9 billion (Belch and Belch 1996), that may influence how consumers think about brands marketed by the corporation. Although such a possibility seems logical a priori, surprisingly little research has examined it. Instead, researchers have studied either corporate advertising or brand advertising. Research on corporate advertising has examined its classification and purpose in terms of its messages (Cowles 1985; Garbett 1983; Rothschild 1987), and its objectives of enhancing corporate image (Haley 1996; Javalgi et al. 1994; Schumann, Hathcote, and West 1991) or increasing investment (Rothschild 1987). Although corporate advertising may have implications for brands (Javagli et al. 1994; Winkleman 1985; Winters 1986), they have not been examined in detail. Consequently, brand managers and researchers are without well- founded and useful guidance. Brand research, in contrast, has emphasized how brand-specific marketing tactics, such as advertising, may affect consumers’ brand knowledge (Keller 1993; Loken and Roedder John 1993; MacInnis, Moorman, and Jaworski 1991; Rao and Sieben 1992). For example, consumers’ beliefs about and attitudes toward brand ads can directly influence their brand knowledge (Homer 1990; MacKenzie, Lutz, and Belch 1986). However, little if any research has explored how company activities not designed to market a specific brand, such as corporate advertising, may affect consumers’ brand knowledge. In fact, managing a brand in a corporate advertising environment raises issues very different from those brand managers encounter in managing their advertising. Brand managers control the messages, execution, and

placement of brand advertising. However, they cannot control its effects, which depend on factors such as clutter, consumers’ involvement level, and competitive actions. Conversely, although some brand managers may influence corporate advertising development, most of them have little control over corporate advertising messages, execution, or placement. However, brand managers can use certain tactics that may encourage consumers to use their corporate ad knowledge when processing brand information. Therefore, although brand managers do not control corporate ad knowledge per se, they may influence consumers’ use of it in a brand information processing context. For example, in their brand ads managers can use message or executional elements taken from a corporate ad. Hence, the strategic questions and tactical options brand managers face in a corporate advertising environment may be very different from those they face with brand advertising. We are unaware of any research examining the conceptual and managerial implications of those potentially important differences. We explore the management of brands in a corporate advertising environment. As our emphasis is on brand management issues, we treat the corporate advertising environment as an exogenous factor. To help develop the new area of inquiry, we organize our coverage around a decision-making model for brand managers and a conceptual model for researchers. Those models enable us to integrate relevant research concepts taken from the marketing, psychology, and consumer behavior literatures and derive several testable propositions. Our approach is therefore similar to that taken by other researchers seeking to develop new study areas (see Bloch 1995). Our work should benefit both brand managers and academic researchers, giving the former a better understanding of how to manage their brands in a corporate advertising environment and the latter a foundation for future research. A Managerial Decision-Making Framework From the perspective of a brand manager, marketing a brand in a corporate advertising environment is likely to raise four questions that constitute a decision-making framework (see Figure 1). First, “Why should I be concerned with consumers’ corporate ad knowledge?” That question, which motivates our paper, leads to consideration of the types of brand knowledge effects that may arise and the role of corporate ad knowledge in bringing them about. Second, “When does it make sense to build my brand(s) by using corporate ad knowledge?” That question leads to consideration of the circumstances, established through market research and a situation analysis, under which managers would pursue such effects. Third, “How can I bring about corporate ad knowledge effects on my brand(s)?” That question leads to understanding the tactics brand managers can use to gain the effects, and the associated risks their brands face if they do. Together, the second and third questions enable us to define a conceptual model for understanding corporate ad knowledge effects on brand knowledge. Finally, “How can I assess corporate ad knowledge effects on my brand(s)?” That question raises measurement issues associated with using market research to identify potential corporate ad knowledge effects and disentangling them from the effects of other brand-building activities. Why Brand Managers Should Be Concerned with Consumers’ Corporate Ad Knowledge Managers should be concerned with consumers’ corporate ad knowledge because it has the potential to influence brand knowledge. We first discuss in more detail the concept of corporate ad knowledge, then describe how it may influence brand knowledge. The Concept of Corporate Ad Knowledge In terms of memory processes and outcomes, corporate advertising is likely to operate in the same way as brand advertising. Research shows exposure to brand advertising causes consumers to form beliefs (Friestad and Wright 1995; MacKenzie, Lutz, and Belch 1986) and feelings (Olney, Holbrook, and Batra 1993; Park, Jaworski, and MacInnis 1986) about the ad based on its executional elements (such as spokesperson effectiveness and the use of color) and messages (such as positioning and claim credibility). From those beliefs and feelings consumers form attitudes toward the ad and brand (Greenwald and Leavitt 1984; MacKenzie, Lutz, and Belch 1986). Research suggests the beliefs, feelings, and attitudes are stored in memory as part of brand

knowledge (Keller 1993). Similarly, we propose that ad- and advertiser-related beliefs, feelings, and attitudes are created from exposure to corporate advertising and stored in memory as part of corporate knowledge. Such a view is consistent with the purpose of much corporate advertising, namely to build or maintain a corporate image (Schumann, Hathcote, and West 1991). In most situations, corporate ad exposure is separated temporally from brand ad exposure and/or the need to make purchase decisions. Consequently, consumers’ beliefs, feelings, and attitudes based on corporate advertising must be stored in and retrievable from memory if they are to influence brand knowledge. Given that view of corporate ad knowledge, we next discuss how such knowledge can change consumers’ brand knowledge.

How Corporate Ad Knowledge Can Change Brand Knowledge Brand knowledge consists of brand awareness, which reflects ease of brand name retrieval in terms of recognition and recall, and brand image, which represents the type, favorability, strength, and uniqueness of associated beliefs. Those beliefs include attitudes, attributes, affective perceptions, and benefits. According to Keller (1993), brand knowledge causes differential responses to marketing tactics. In other words, consumers should react very differently to identical marketing efforts by Seiko and Rolex. In that conceptualization, the beliefs, feelings, and attitudes created from exposure to corporate advertising can change brand knowledge by influencing brand awareness and brand image. Those potential knowledge changes can occur through several processes: (1) attitude transfer, whereby attitudes toward corporate advertising alter attitude toward the brand (Homer 1990; MacKenzie, Lutz, and Belch 1986); (2) affect transfer, whereby affect created by corporate advertising alters brand affect (Fiske and Pavelchak 1986); (3) inferencing, whereby consumers either infer new brand beliefs (Simmons and Lynch 1991) or alter current brand beliefs (Ford and Smith 1987) on the basis of their corporate ad knowledge; and/or (4) belief transfer, whereby corporate ad knowledge directly transfers to brand knowledge (Homer 1990; MacKenzie, Lutz, and Belch 1986).

The transfer and inference effects can have a subsequent impact on the likelihood of brand choice (Dick, Chakravarti, and Biehal 1990). As an example, General Motors’s recent corporate advertising positions the company as concerned with quality. Among consumers who believe a particular GM brand, such as Oldsmobile, has “high quality,” retrieval of GM’s corporate ad knowledge may transfer to the brand belief and thus strengthen it in memory. Consequently, the brand belief would become easier to retrieve and consumers would have more confidence in it (Wyer and Srull 1989). We subsequently describe how managers can encourage such processes to their advantage. In sum, corporate advertising is important to brand managers because consumers can develop knowledge from it that may influence their brand knowledge. Because of the temporal separation between corporate advertising and brand processing, the effects of corporate ad knowledge depend on consumers’ ability to retrieve it from memory. That knowledge, in turn, may change brand knowledge in several ways. Circumstances, Tactics, and Risks of Managing the Brand in a Corporate Advertising Environment Given that the corporate advertising environment is a legitimate concern for brand managers, we consider the second and third questions raised previously. Our discussion is divided into three parts: circumstances that may encourage brand managers to seek corporate ad knowledge effects, tactics they can use to achieve those effects, and risks the tactics engender. Circumstances for Seeking Corporate Ad Knowledge Effects on Brands When does it make sense to build brands by using corporate ad knowledge? The answer depends on the budget realities facing the brand manager and an assessment of consumer characteristics as determined by market research. A major circumstance that may lead brand managers to seek corporate ad knowledge effects is declining “share of voice,” or SOV. SOV reflects the brand’s marketing communications expenditures in relation to those of competitors (Belch and Belch 1996). Seeking corporate ad knowledge effects on brands may make sense when SOV is declining because of, for example, increases in competitors’ communications spending or decreases in the brand’s own communications budget. Low SOV can decrease the likelihood that brand managers can obtain enough reach or frequency to have an impact on the brand’s market position (Little 1979) or spend enough on ad development and testing to develop “breakthrough” campaigns. Under such circumstances, managers should use cost-effective tactics for building their brands (Aaker 1996). Consequently, it may make sense for brand managers to spend limited resources in areas other than brand advertising, such as sales promotions and support (Little 1975). If consumers have well-developed and positive corporate ad knowledge, brand managers may be better off building brand knowledge through corporate ad knowledge instead of spending resources on brand-specific messages. For example, GM has had declining SOV during this decade because of spending increases by foreign competitors and other U.S. auto companies, such as Ford. Instead of trying to create distinct brand images, which would be difficult and expensive in the current competitive environment, product managers should consider a strategy that leverages consumers’ corporate ad knowledge about GM onto their brands. That approach may make GM better off because brand managers would be able to reduce their brand advertising spending and use the resources for other marketing activities, such as customer loyalty programs and purchase incentives. Several consumer characteristics may also encourage brand managers to consider building their brands by using corporate ad knowledge. Together with brand marketing tactics, they may moderate corporate ad knowledge effects on the brand (Figure 2). Consumer characteristics can be measured in an attitude and usage study prior to development of brand strategies or over time in tracking studies. The brand manager should consider three relevant consumer characteristics: brand decision-making involvement, brand knowledge, and corporate ad knowledge. To guide future research, we summarize our discussion in the form of testable propositions. Brand Decision-Making Involvement. Involvement in brand decision-making is a well-known moderator of

information processing in general and advertising in particular (Greenwald and Leavitt 1984; Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann 1983). It is a psychological state characterized by a motivation to elaborate (MacInnis and Jaworski 1989). An important consequence of elaboration is a greater likelihood of related knowledge sources being retrieved and used in judgment (Petty and Cacioppo 1986). Hence, highly involved consumers are most likely to think beyond brand knowledge and consider related knowledge, such as that formed from corporate advertising. P1. The influence of corporate ad knowledge on brand knowledge increases as consumers’ brand decision- making involvement increases. Brand Knowledge. Brand knowledge varies on many dimensions (Alba and Hutchinson 1987). We describe some that are particularly relevant to managers making the decision to seek corporate ad knowledge effects on their brands. One such dimension is diagnosticity. Knowledge is said to be diagnostic if it helps differentiate the brand in a decision-making context (Alba, Hutchinson, and Lynch 1991; Lynch, Marmorstein, and Weigold 1988). If consumers’ brand knowledge is insufficiently diagnostic, they may be motivated to obtain information from other, related sources (Baker and Lutz 1988; Ozanne, Brucks, and Grewal 1992) such as corporate ad knowledge. Knowledge overlap occurs when corporate ad knowledge and brand knowledge have beliefs, attitudes, or other product-related knowledge in common. Overlap could occur in several ways; for example, corporate and brand ads may have similar creative executions. Greater overlap between knowledge representations would increase the likelihood that retrieving knowledge from one would lead to retrieval from the other (Rosch 1978). Such mutual retrieval would further strengthen the associations between the overlapping knowledge representations, thereby increasing the chance of future mutual retrieval. Finally, knowledge may differ in its accessibility. In general, knowledge becomes more accessible in memory when consumers repeatedly retrieve and use it (Keller 1993). Although accessible and positive brand beliefs are desirable, research shows highly accessible beliefs are difficult to change (Crocker, Fiske, and Taylor 1984; Linville, Fisher, and Salovey 1986). If consumers have highly accessible brand beliefs and attitudes, they may be unwilling to change them in the face of additional information, such as corporate ad knowledge. That knowledge therefore is most likely to change brand knowledge when brand advertising is done at a low intensity or even stopped entirely because of budget constraints or seasonal factors. P2. Corporate ad knowledge has greater influence on brand knowledge when brand knowledge (a) is less diagnostic, (b) overlaps with corporate ad knowledge, and (c) is less accessible in memory. Consumers’ brand attitudes are another brand knowledge component that may influence managers’ decision to seek corporate ad knowledge effects. Extremely positive or negative brand attitudes inhibit information search by acting as decision heuristics or processing “shortcuts” (Maheswaran, Mackie, and Chaiken 1993; Schwarz, Bless, and Bohner 1991; Tversky and Kahneman 1974). They enable consumers to make rapid judgments based on the attitude without processing the beliefs in detail. Hence, with strongly valenced brand attitudes, consumers should be less motivated to retrieve related information, such as their corporate ad knowledge. P3. Corporate ad knowledge has less influence on brand knowledge when brand attitude is strongly valenced. Corporate Ad Knowledge. The properties of consumers’ corporate ad knowledge also may influence brand managers’ decision to use it to their brand’s advantage. Like brand attitudes, corporate ad attitudes should have greater influence when they are strongly valenced than when they are neutral or absent. Strongly valenced attitudes are readily accessible (Lingle and Ostrom 1979), and may bias processing by causing consumers to make rapid judgments consistent with them (Maheswaran, Mackie, and Chaiken 1993; Petty and Cacioppo 1986). Clearly, brand managers should seek corporate ad knowledge effects only if attitudes are positively valenced; if they are not, they are likely to dilute brand knowledge and negate previous brand-building efforts. Another consideration is corporate ad knowledge accessibility. Knowledge that has not been accessed frequently or recently becomes harder to retrieve (Alba, Hutchinson, and Lynch 1991). If consumers cannot

retrieve corporate ad knowledge easily it is unlikely to influence their brand knowledge. One factor that may make corporate ad knowledge more difficult to retrieve is the time lapse since consumers’ last exposure to corporate advertising; as the elapsed time increases, corporate ad knowledge becomes less likely to have brand effects. P4. Corporate ad knowledge has a greater influence on brand knowledge when (a) consumers’ corporate ad attitudes are strongly valenced, and (b) corporate ad knowledge is more accessible.

In sum, seeking corporate ad knowledge effects may make sense for brand managers when their brands face diminished share of voice, consumers’ brand decision-making involvement is high, and consumers’ brand and corporate ad knowledge has certain properties. Those conditions should be measured when brand managers perform market research. Tactics to Enhance Corporate Ad Knowledge Effects on Brands If brand managers decide to pursue corporate ad knowledge effects, how can they achieve them? We describe some tactics used in brand advertising, brand packaging, and brand naming that should all moderate the influence of corporate ad knowledge on brand knowledge (Figure 2). Brand Advertising Tactics. Research in consumer behavior and psychology suggests two brand ad tactics that should increase the likelihood of corporate ad knowledge influence: the use of corporate ad knowledge retrieval cues in brand ads and the use of executional and/or scheduling similarity between brand and corporate ads. Retrieval cues are memory aids that help consumers retrieve knowledge (Alba and Hutchinson 1987; Keller 1987). Brand managers can use corporate ad knowledge retrieval cues (images, logos, symbols, or messages) in brand ads to facilitate its retrieval. Memory research suggests managers should select retrieval cues with two properties. First, the cues should be closely associated in consumers’ minds with the targeted corporate ad knowledge (Wyer and Srull 1989). Second, to maximize retrieval probability, the cues should also be uniquely associated with targeted knowledge (Isen 1987). For example, 3M’s brand ads contain its well-known and distinctive logo. Because 3M uses the logo in all of its corporate ads, thereby creating strong associations with

it, putting it in brand ads, such as those for Post-It Notes, should facilitate the retrieval of corporate ad knowledge. Brand managers can also control the similarity between brand and corporate advertising. Increasing the similarity between two disparate stimuli raises the likelihood that exposure to one will lead to knowledge retrieval from the other (Aaker and Keller 1990; Fiske and Pavelchak 1988). For example, if two brands are in the same product category and have similar ads, exposure to one ad would lead to knowledge retrieval from the other (Burke and Srull 1988). The reason is that the two ads are linked through category membership. Similarly, if brand and corporate ad knowledge is linked (e.g., through names, symbols, or other consumer knowledge), ad similarity should increase the likelihood of corporate ad knowledge being used when consumers are exposed to brand ads. Brand managers can control four types of ad similarity: message, execution, media placement, and media scheduling. Eli Lilly’s advertising is an example of message similarity. The corporate ads position the company as being innovative, with a mission to help people, and the brand ads convey the same message while positioning particular medications. 3M’s advertising is an example of executional similarity. The brand and corporate print ads both contain the word “Innovation” in large type at the bottom. Anheuser-Busch’s advertising illustrates media placement similarity. Corporate ads for the company’s aluminum can recycling efforts have been placed in media vehicles containing brand ads for Budweiser and Bud Light beer. Finally, GM’s advertising is an example of media scheduling similarity. Brand and corporate ads ran during the same week in the first quarter of 1997. P5. Corporate ad knowledge has a greater influence on brand knowledge when brand ads (a) contain corporate ad knowledge retrieval cues, (b) are similar to consumers’ knowledge of corporate ad messages and executions, (c) are placed in the same media vehicles as corporate ads, and (d) are scheduled at the same times as corporate ads. Brand Packaging Tactics. Brand managers can place corporate ad knowledge retrieval cues on the brand’s packaging. However, unlike brand advertising, such retrieval cues may be more likely to influence brand choice than brand knowledge. By causing different information to be salient, packaging changes alter the probability of a brand being chosen (Keller 1987). If brand packaging has corporate ad retrieval cues, such as the company name or symbol, consumers may retrieve their corporate ad knowledge and hence use different choice criteria than they would if no such cues were present. P6. Corporate ad knowledge has a greater influence on brand knowledge when brand packaging contains corporate ad knowledge retrieval cues. Brand Naming Tactics. Finally, brand managers can use brand naming tactics to obtain corporate ad knowledge effects on their brands. Most researchers believe product knowledge is organized around the brand name that identifies the product (Aaker 1991; Keller 1993; Mitchell and Dacin 1996). Thus, the brand name is the central point around which other product-related knowledge is encoded and organized (Farquhar 1989). The centrality of the name in the organization of brand knowledge suggests that brand naming tactics may play a role in determining how corporate ad knowledge influences the brand. Managers can choose among four primary brand naming tactics (Aaker 1996; Kapferer 1991): (1) corporate branding, whereby the corporate name is used as the brand name (Citibank), (2) joint branding, whereby the corporate name is used in conjunction with separate brand names (Honda Accord), (3) sub branding, whereby the corporate name is present but less emphasized than separate brand names (Courtyard by Marriott), and (4) separate branding, whereby the corporate name is not used at all and separate brand names are used (Tide and Ivory are marketed by Procter &Gamble). Because they potentially change the salience of the corporate name, brand naming tactics should affect the likelihood of corporate ad knowledge being used to evaluate brands. With corporate branding, corporate ad knowledge and brand knowledge are likely to be stored in a single knowledge representation. Therefore,

corporate ad knowledge is likely to influence the brand. With joint branding, the corporate name is as salient as the brand name. However, the two knowledge representations, though likely to be related, should also be separate in memory. Consequently, corporate ad knowledge is less likely to be used with joint branding than it is with same branding. With sub branding, the brand name is more salient than the corporate name, further reducing the likelihood that consumers will use their corporate ad knowledge. Finally, using separate brand and corporate names probably leads to entirely separate brand and corporate ad knowledge representations with few, if any, common links. Hence, consumers’ use of corporate ad knowledge would be unlikely. P7. Corporate ad knowledge has a decreasing influence on brand knowledge with corporate branding, joint branding, sub branding, and separate branding, respectively. Assuming consumers have positive corporate ad knowledge, how should brand managers decide among the brand naming tactics? Several considerations beyond the scope of our article will enter into that decision (Aaker 1996). Some companies, such as 3M and GE, have limited the tactical flexibility of their brand managers by imposing strict naming guidelines, but many brand managers have complete autonomy in naming brands (Kapferer 1991). For those managers, each tactic may be appropriate under certain circumstances. Corporate branding may be appropriate for products that are at parity with competitors, or are similar in image or target segments to other corporate products (Kapferer 1991). In such contexts, consumers’ corporate ad knowledge can strengthen a brand in relation to its competitors. For example, Citibank’s products, such as consumer loans and checking accounts, are basically at parity with those of competitors, and are similar in image and target segments to other Citibank products and services. Hence, brand managers may see little need to establish separate brand names if they find that consumers have positive knowledge formed from Citibank’s corporate ads. Importantly, in some circumstances corporate branding may be the only feasible tactic for brand managers operating in a corporate advertising environment. For example, because of the high cost of establishing separate brand names and images (Aaker 1991), brand managers may have to rely entirely on consumers’ corporate ad knowledge if their communications funds are limited. Joint branding and sub branding may be more appropriate for products that are differentiated from their competitors. In such cases, brand managers can assign corporate ad knowledge an “endorser” role, providing support and credibility to brand claims and thereby reassuring consumers (Aaker 1996). Used in that way, both naming tactics may save communications expenses because they take advantage of consumers’ current knowledge, though to different degrees. Specifically, joint branding may be appropriate for products that are similar in image and target segments to other corporate products. For example, like other Honda cars, the Accord is positioned as high quality and durable. Conversely, sub branding may be more appropriate for products that are different from other corporate products in image or target segments. For example, Courtyard by Marriott has a less upscale image than the company’s flagship hotel chain. Finally, brand managers may find separate branding is most appropriate for products that are highly differentiated from the company’s other products and those of competitors. In such situations brand managers do not want consumers’ corporate ad knowledge to interfere with carefully crafted brand images. Anheuser- Busch, for example, markets several products in the beer category (Budweiser, Bud Lite, Busch) that are targeted to different segments with different images. Separate names therefore give brand managers the freedom to communicate distinct positions that are unlikely to be influenced adversely by corporate ad knowledge. Clearly, brand managers may also be inclined to use separate branding when consumers have negative or no corporate ad knowledge. In sum, several advertising, packaging, and brand naming tactics can be used by brand managers to modify the likelihood that corporate ad knowledge will influence their brands. Those tactics may also interact with some of the market and consumer circumstances previously discussed. However, managers need to recognize the potential risks of using corporate ad knowledge to enhance their brands. Risks of Obtaining Corporate Ad Knowledge Effects on Brands

Consumer behavior research suggests that brand managers may face two significant risks if they seek corporate ad knowledge effects. First, they risk adverse accessibility effects. A significant benefit of corporate ad knowledge is its potential for creating new brand beliefs, thereby building brand image. However, the new beliefs could have adverse consequences if they make current brand beliefs relatively less accessible. Adverse accessibility effects could occur if consumers find it difficult to “think past” highly accessible corporate ad knowledge to retrieve less accessible but potentially more diagnostic brand knowledge (Alba and Chattopadhyay 1985). For example, Oldsmobile’s brand manager would not want its current repositioning strategy to become less accessible because consumers are exposed frequently to GM corporate ads. The possibility of such adverse accessibility effects suggests that brand managers must carefully plan their ad campaigns. For example, if their brands occupy unique positions, they should consider maintaining some level of brand advertising during periods of heavy corporate advertising to decrease the likelihood of adverse accessibility effects. Second, brand managers risk positioning conflicts, which can occur if corporate advertising creates knowledge inconsistent with the brand’s positioning. For example, if consumers are exposed frequently to GM’s corporate ads positioning the company on old-fashioned quality and tradition, they may perceive the message as inconsistent with Oldsmobile’s attempts to reposition the line as modern. Positioning inconsistency may be unavoidable in some situations, because corporate and brand advertising can have different objectives and targets. Also, such conflicts may be more likely to occur for some brand naming approaches than others. One advantage of the separate branding tactic is that it may reduce the likelihood of positioning conflicts, because corporate ad knowledge and brand knowledge are not likely to be associated closely in memory. If brand managers anticipate or detect positioning problems, they should use marketing tactics to avoid them. For example, they can decrease the similarity of the brand ad campaign to the corporate one or increase brand advertising frequency, thereby strengthening unique brand knowledge. Assessing Corporate Ad Knowledge Effects on the Brand Finally, brand managers need to know how they can assess corporate ad knowledge effects on their brands. Managing the brand in a corporate advertising environment probably will necessitate additional expenditures on measurement, testing, and market research. Brand managers who actively try to build their brands by using corporate ad knowledge will need to test among different tactical options and then track the effectiveness of the tactics employed. Managers who do not actively seek such effects will need to track consumers’ corporate ad knowledge with the objective of detecting potential problems. Testing The testing issue is important because brand managers may be uncertain whether or not to encourage corporate ad knowledge effects. A two-step testing sequence may resolve that issue. The first step is to measure consumers’ corporate ad knowledge, for example, by adding questions to an Attitude and Usage Study. In that way, brand managers can determine whether their consumer targets actually have corporate ad knowledge, and the beliefs, feelings, and attitudes underlying it. If brand managers find consumers’ corporate ad knowledge is positive, in the second step they should test whichever tactic they select for encouraging corporate ad knowledge effects on brand knowledge. For example, brand managers could create two ads, one with and one without corporate ad knowledge retrieval cues. Then they could conduct a split-run test and compare measures of brand knowledge for the two ads (Curry 1993). In that way, they could determine quantitatively the effects of corporate ad retrieval cues on brand knowledge. Tracking Whether or not brand managers decide to seek such effects, they should measure corporate ad knowledge over time as part of their Tracking Studies. They should note any changes, for example, in brand awareness, brand associations, brand belief confidence, and brand loyalty. They should also measure brand associations that may stem from corporate ad knowledge.

If they find changes or new associations, they can cross-check them against brand marketing tactics and corporate ad knowledge, thereby attempting to understand transfer and inferencing effects. Budget constraints limiting brand advertising provide an ideal opportunity for natural field experiments: when there is little or no brand advertising, observed changes in brand knowledge may be traceable to the influence of corporate ad knowledge. If brand managers are running brand advertising with high frequency and also actively seeking corporate ad effects, great care may be necessary to tease out those effects. For example, surveys could be used to measure brand attitude, brand affect, and individual brand beliefs. Then separate regressions could be run with current brand measures as dependent variables and the following three knowledge-related independent variables: (1) prior brand measures, (2) brand ad measures, and (3) corporate ad measures. Such analyses may enable brand managers to determine whether corporate ad knowledge is contributing to brand knowledge and, if so, to what degree. Conclusions We propose a decision-making framework for brand managers who want to build their brands in a corporate advertising environment. The framework raises several questions that brand managers need to address. In particular, we show how questions pertaining to consumer characteristics and brand tactics form the basis of a useful conceptual model. We emphasize, however, that our understanding of corporate ad knowledge effects on brands is currently poorly developed. Our conceptual model and research propositions offer some specific directions for future research, but several more general issues are also worth considering. In a managerial context, future research should explore the nature and extent to which brand managers interact with corporate communications managers. We also need to investigate whether brand managers consider consumers’ corporate ad knowledge, and how they use it in their brand planning. Personal in-depth interviews with managers would be a useful starting point for learning about actual brand decision-making processes in a corporate advertising environment. In a conceptual context, we need to develop an understanding of the processes by which corporate ad knowledge can influence brand knowledge. We propose that corporate ad knowledge can change brand knowledge. However, its effects may vary as a function of many factors. For example, inferencing from corporate ad knowledge may be likely when consumers are highly involved, whereas simple attitude transfer effects may be observed if they are less involved. In the future, researchers should try to isolate and understand the many potential moderating conditions that may change how corporate ad knowledge influences brand knowledge. Because the two kinds of knowledge are distinct yet potentially related, future research should also study issues pertaining to the memory representation and retrieval processes underlying them. So far, no research has explored how corporate and brand ads influence the relationship between the two knowledge representations. Issues such as associative strength and overlap between the two knowledge representations, potential biasing effects of one representation on the other, and relative accessibility warrant detailed empirical exploration. A theoretical framework then could be developed for understanding the circumstances that favor the use of specific brand marketing tactics. In sum, we make a case for considering the influence of corporate ad knowledge on brands. We raise several questions that are important for brand managers, identify managerial implications, and state research propositions that warrant empirical confirmation. We believe the proposed managerial decisionmaking framework and conceptual model will facilitate conceptually based research on the management of brands in a corporate advertising environment. Clearly, much work remains to be done to develop a meaningful theory of corporate ad knowledge effects on brands that can guide both theoreticians and brand managers. References References

References Aaker, David ( 1991), Managing Brand Equily, New York: The Free Press. (1996), Building Strong Brands, New York: The Free Press. and Kevin Lane Keller (1990), “Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (January), 27-41. Alba, Joseph W. and Amitava Chattopadhyay (1985), “The Effects of Context and Part-Category Cues on the Recall of Competing Brands,”Journal o(Marketing Research, 22 (August), 340349. References and J. Wesley Hutchinson (1987), “Dimensions of Consumer Expertise,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (March), 411-454. References , and John G. Lynch, Jr. (1991), “Memory and Decision Making,” in Handbook of Consumer Behavior, Harold H. Kassarjian and Thomas S. Robertson, eds., Englewood-Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1-49. Baker, William E. and Richard J. Lutz (1988), “The RelevanceAccessibility Model of Advertising Effectiveness,” in Nonverbal Communication in Advertising, Sidney Hecker and David W. Stewart, eds., Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 59-84. Belch, George E. and Michael A. Belch (1996), An Introduction to Advertising and Promotion, Chicago: Irwin. Bloch, Peter H. (1995), “Seeking the Ideal Form: Product Design and Consumer Response,” Journal of Marketing, 59 (July), 16-29. References Burke, Raymond R. and Thomas K. Srull (1988), “Competitive Interference and Consumer Memory for Advertising,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (June), 55-68. Cowles, Deborah L. (1985), “Corporate Advertising Problem Solver or Problem Child?” in Proceedings of 1985 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising, Nancy Stephens, ed., Tempe, AZ: American Academy of Advertising, R113-R117. Crocker, Jennifer, Susan T. Fiske, and Shelley Taylor (1984), “Schematic Bases of Belief Change,” in Attitudinal Judgment, J.R. Eiser, ed., New York: Springer-Verlag, 197-226. Curry, David J. (1993), The New Marketing Research Systems, New York: John Wiley &Sons. Dick, Alan, Dipankar Chakravarti, and Gabriel Biehal (1990), “Memory-Based Inferences During Consumer Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (June), 82-93. Farquhar, Peter H. (1989), “Managing Brand Equity,” Marketing Research, 1 (September), 24-33. Fiske, Susan T. and Mark A. Pavelchak (1986), “Category-Based Versus Piecemeal-Based Affective Responses: Developments in Schema-Triggered Affect,” in The Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior, Richard M. Sorrentino and E. Tory Higgins, cds., New York: Guilford, 167-203. References Ford, Gary T. and Ruth Ann Smith (1987), “Inferential Beliefs in Consumer Evaluations: An Assessment of Alternative Processing Strategies,” Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (December), 363-371. Friestad, Marian and Peter Wright (1995), “Persuasion Knowledge: Lay Peoples’ and Researchers’ Beliefs About the Psychology of Advertising,” Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (June), 65-74. Garbett, Thomas F. (1983), “Researching Corporate Advertising,” Journal of Advertising Research, 23 (February/March), 33-37. Greenwald, Anthony G. and Clark Leavitt (1984), “Audience Involvement in Advertising: Four Levels,” Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (June), 581-592. Haley, Eric (1996), “Exploring the Construct of Organization as Source: Consumers’ Understandings of Organizational Sponsorship of Advocacy Advertising,” Journal of Advertising, 25 (Summer), 19-36. Homer, Pamela M. (1990), “The Mediating Role of Attitude Toward the Ad: Some Additional Evidence,” Journal

of Marketing Research, 27 (February), 78-86. Isen, Alice (1987), “Positive Affect, Cognitive Processes and Social Behavior,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 20, L. Berkowitz, ed., New York: Academic Press, 203253. Javagli, Rajshekhar, Mark B. Traylor, Andrew C. Gross, and Edward Lampman (1994), “Awareness of Sponsorship and Corporate Image: An Empirical Investigation,” Journal of Advertising, 23 (December), 47-58. References Kapferer, Jean-Noel (1991), Strategic Brand Management, New York: The Free Press. Keller, Kevin Lane (1987), “Memory Factors in Advertising: The Effect of Advertising Retrieval Cues on Brand Evaluations,” Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (December), 316-333. (1993), *Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity,”Journal of Marketing, 57 (January), 1-22. Lingle, J.H. and T.M. Ostrom (1979), “Retrieval Selectivity in Memory-Based Impression Judgments,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37,180-194. Linville, Patricia W., Gregory W. Fischer, and Peter Salovey (1986), “Stereotyping and Perceived Distributions of Social Characteristics: An Application to Ingroup-Outgroup Perception,” in Prejudice, Discrimination and Racism, John F. Dovidio and Samuel L. Gaertner, eds., New York: Academic Press, 165208. References Little, John D.C. (1975), “BRANDAID: A Marketing-Mix Model, Part I,” Operations Research, 23 (July/August), 628-673. (1979), “Aggregate Advertising Models: The State of the Art,” Operations Research, 27 (July/August), 629-667. Loken, Barbara and Deborah Roedder John (1993), “Diluting Brand Beliefs: When Do Brand Extensions Have a Negative Impact?” Journal of Marketing, 57 (July), 71-84. Lynch, John G., Howard Marmorstein, and Michael F. Weigold (1988), “Choices from Sets Including Remembered Brands: Use of Recalled Attributes and Prior Overall Evaluations,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (September), 169-184. MacInnis, Deborah J. and Bernard J. Jaworski (1989), “Information Processing from Advertisements: Toward an Integrative Framework,” Journal of Marketing, 53 (October), 1-23. , Christine Moorman, and Bernard J. Jaworski (1991), “Enhancing and Measuring Consumers’ Motivation, Opportunity, and Ability to Process Brand Information from Ads,” Journal of Marketing, 55 (October), 32-53. MacKenzie, Scott B., Richard J. Lutz, and George E. Belch (1986), “The Role of Attitude Toward the Ad as a Mediator of Advertising Effectiveness: A Test of Competing Hypotheses,” Journal of Marketing Research, 23 (May), 130-143. Maheswaran, Durairaj, Diane M. Mackie, and Shelly Chaiken (1993), “Brand Name as a Heuristic Cue: The Effects of’ Task Importance and Expectancy Confirmation on Consumer Judgments,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1 (March), 317-336. Mitchell, Andrew A. and Peter A. Dacin (1996), “The Assessment of Alternative Measures of Consumer Expertise,” Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (December), 219-239. Olney, Thomas J., Morris Holbrook, and Rajeev Batra ( 1993), “Consumer Responses to Advertising: The Effects of Ad Content, Emotions and Attitude Toward the Ad on Viewing Time,” Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (March), 440-453. References Ozanne, Julie L., Merrie Brucks, and Dhruv Grewal (1992), UA Study of Information Search Behavior During the Categorization of New Products,” Journal of Consumer Research, 18 (March), 452-463. Park, C. Whan, Bernard J. Jaworski, and Deborah J. MacInnis (1986), “Strategic Brand Concept-Image Management,” Journal of Marketing, 50 (October), 135-145. Petty, Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo (1986), “The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 19, L. Berkowitz, ed., New York: Academic Press, 123-205. , and David Schumann (1983), “Cen tral and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement,” Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (September), 135-146. Rao, Ashkay R. and Wanda A. Sieben (1992), “The Effect of Prior Knowledge on Price Accessibility and the

Type of Information Examined,” Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (September), 26-270. Rosch, Eleanor (1978), “Principles of Categorization,” in Cognition and Categorization, Eleanor Rosch and Barbara Lloyd, eds., Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2748. Rothschild, Michael L. (1987), Advertising, Lexington, MA: Heath. Schumann, David M., Jan M. Hathcote, and Susan West (1991), “Corporate Advertising in America: A Review of Published Studies on Use, Measurement, and Effectiveness,” Journal of Advertising, 20 (September), 35-56. Schwarz, Norbert, Herbert Bless, and Gerd Bohner (1991), “Mood and Persuasion: Affective States Influence the Processing of Persuasive Communications,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 24, L. Berkowitz, ed., New York: Academic Press, 161-199. Simmons, Carolyn J. and John G. Lynch (1991), “Inference Effects Without Inference Making? Effects of Missing Information on Discounting and Use of Presented Information,” Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (March), 477-491. Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahneman (1974), “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,” Science, 185, 1124-1131. Winkleman, Michael (1985), “Corporate Advertising,” Public Relations Journal, 41 (December), 38-39. Winters, Lewis C. (1986), “The Effect of Brand Advertising on Company Image: Implications for Corporate Advertising,” Journal of Advertising Research, 26 (April/May), 54-59. Wyer, Robert S. and Thomas K. Srull (1989), Memory and Cognition in its Social Context, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. AuthorAffiliation Gabriel J. Biehal (Ph.D., Stanford University) is Safeway Fellow and Associate Professor of Marketing, College of Business and Management, University of Maryland at College Park. Daniel A. Sheinin (Ph.D., Columbia University) is Assistant Professor of Marketing, College of Business and Management, University of Maryland at College Park. The authors contributed equally to the research. Order of authorship is alphabetical. The authors thank the editor and three anonymous JA reviewers for their constructive comments throughout the review process. Subject: Studies; Advertising; Brand names; Market strategy; Corporate image; Decision making; Location: US Classification: 9190: US; 9130: Experimental/theoretical treatment; 7200: Advertising; 2420: Image Publication title: Journal of Advertising Volume: 27 Issue: 2 Pages: 99-110 Number of pages: 12 Publication year: 1998 Publication date: Summer 1998 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Ltd. Place of publication: Abingdon Country of publication: United Kingdom Publication subject: Business And Economics, Advertising And Public Relations ISSN: 00913367 CODEN: JOADD7

Source type: Scholarly Journals Language of publication: English Document type: Feature Accession number: 01728029, 04027965 ProQuest document ID: 236493049 Document URL: http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.saintleo.edu/docview/236493049?accountid=4870 Copyright: Copyright American Academy of Advertising Summer 1998 Last updated: 2013-05-08 Database: ABI/INFORM Complete,ProQuest Research Library

Bibliography Citation style: APA 6th – American Psychological Association, 6th Edition

Gabriel, J. B., & Daniel, A. S. (1998). Managing the brand in a corporate advertising environment: A decision- making framework for brand managers. Journal of Advertising, 27(2), 99-110. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.saintleo.edu/docview/236493049?accountid=4870

_______________________________________________________________ Contact ProQuest Copyright  2015 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. – Terms and Conditions