International Journal of Market Research Vol.

48 Issue 2

Evaluating advertising effects on

brand perceptions: incorporating
prior knowledge

Jenni Romaniuk and Emma Nicholls

Ehrenberg-Bass Institute, University of South Australia

Received (in revised form): 18 November 2005

One of the key objectives of advertising is to influence the perceptions customers

hold about a brand in their memory. Therefore, when assessing the effectiveness
of an advertising campaign, researchers often look at changes in responses to
brand-attribute linkage questions. Drawing on two cases in the fast-food and
financial services markets, we show how using known patterns in perceptual data
to create expected values can more clearly isolate the effect of advertising on
brand perceptions. This technique removes the overall shifts in brand usage or the
relevance of the attribute to the category, which when trying to isolate the effects
of advertising a specific message are essentially ‘noise’. Removal of this ‘noise’
reduces the number of changes that need attention and highlights advertising-
related changes.

Introduction
Assessing the effect of advertising expenditure is an activity undertaken
and debated by both marketers and researchers. One approach has sought
to link advertising directly with sales. This has produced mixed results,
and even those studies showing advertising as being effective have rarely
provided any indication as to why. An alternative approach seeks to
determine the effect of advertising on intermediate variables such as brand
perceptions, attitudes, awareness or equity. One such intermediate variable
is the link between the brand name and desired attributes in buyer
memory. These brand-attribute linkages have long been acknowledged as
important aspects of brand equity/knowledge (Keller 1993, 2003).
One strategy of advertising campaigns is to focus on a central theme
(e.g. ‘we offer excellent service’), with the objective of developing specific

© 2006 The Market Research Society 179

Evaluating advertising effects on brand perceptions

perceptions about a brand. Advertising effectiveness is then assessed

through examining the specific link between the brand and the perception
of ‘excellent service’. The aim is to ascertain whether advertising efforts
have made a difference in establishing, reinforcing or shifting these percep-
tions. Brand perceptions are important because they are said to influence
consideration and evaluation, and therefore purchase (Nedungadi 1990;
Keller 2003). They are of particular interest from an advertising evaluation
perspective because short-term sales can be affected by various non-
advertising factors (such as, for example, price promotions) and also the
vast number of people exposed to the advertising may not have an oppor-
tunity to purchase from the category. Analysing effects on intermediate
variables can overcome these limitations. Further, these consumer mindset
measures, of which brand perceptions are one, are considered an
important aspect of brand equity due to their diagnostic ability (Ailawadi
2003).
Identifying the effect of advertising on brand perceptions has mostly
focused on examining direct changes in the proportion of respondents who
mention the brand, for specific brand attributes (for example, 46% of
people interviewed thought Brand X was ‘good value for money’ in
quarter 2 while 52% thought Brand X was ‘good value for money’ in
quarter 3).
However, there are factors, aside from advertising activity, that can
influence a respondent’s propensity to give a response linking a brand to
an attribute. Two of these are (1) if the respondent uses the brand and
(2) the degree to which the attribute is considered to contribute to category
membership, or its ‘prototypicality’ (Bird et al. 1970; Romaniuk & Sharp
2000). In this research, an approach controlling for these two influences is
compared to the more typical comparison of percentage changes. The
purpose is to determine which approach provides greater insight as to the
real effect that the advertising has had on marketplace brand perceptions.

Background
The measurement of advertising effectiveness has been evolving over many
years. Competition for marketing budgets from more easily measured
activities, such as price promotions and direct marketing campaigns, has
raised issues of accountability for the money spent on advertising, as well
as assessing return on investment (Feldwick 1996). Thus, the expectations
of what advertising can achieve, and therefore the most appropriate
advertising objectives and how to measure them, have also been widely

180
 International Journal of Market Research Vol. 48 Issue 2

debated (e.g. Jones 1990; Ehrenberg et al. 2000). Despite this, the tools
used for advertising evaluation seem to have remained consistent. These
measures include unprompted and prompted advertising awareness, recall,
recognition and understanding of the advertising content or message
(McDonald 2000). Essentially, these measures also look at the short-term
effects of advertising efforts, with a focus on customer memory structures
rather than directly on sales.
Marketing activities are undertaken with the goal of changing or
reinforcing the consumer ‘mindset’ in some way. This includes thoughts,
feelings, experiences, images, perceptions, beliefs and attitudes towards a
brand. Keller and Lehmann (2003) describe five dimensions as being
important measures of the consumer mindset:

1. Brand Awareness (recall, recognition)

2. Brand Associations (strength, favourability, uniqueness of perceived
benefits and attributes)
3. Brand Attitude (perceived quality of, and satisfaction with, the brand)
4. Attachment (or Loyalty), and
5. Activity (how much consumers talk about, use, seek out information,
promotions, etc. regarding the brand).

The value of a brand, and the effectiveness of marketing activities

undertaken to affect the consumer mindset about a brand, is therefore
often measured by evaluating changes in perceptual responses on
advertised attributes.
Brand perceptions are attributes in consumer memory that are linked to
the brand name (Keller 1993). They have been the subject of research for
many decades, particularly since the seminal article by Gardner and Levy
(1955), which articulated that the brand was more than just the sum of the
functional qualities it offered. Considered to be a key aspect of brand
equity (Aaker 1992, 1996), developing, changing or reinforcing brand
perceptions has long been considered an outcome of effective advertising,
in that these perceptions and associations can influence the response to
subsequent marketing activity (Keller 2003).
Past research has identified two key influences on a person’s propensity
to associate a particular brand with a particular attribute. The first is usage
of the brand, which impacts the likelihood of a brand to be associated with
(almost) any attribute. Customers are about three times more likely to
mention a brand they use than a brand they don’t use (Bird et al. 1970).
Thus, brands that have more users systematically gain more responses

181
Evaluating advertising effects on brand perceptions

than brands that have fewer users. The slight exception to this pattern is
for highly descriptive attributes, which describe functional aspects of the
brand. Here, non-users are also highly likely to mention a brand; however,
brand users will still have a higher propensity (Barwise & Ehrenberg 1985;
Hoek et al. 2000). Changes in a brand’s usage levels – for example, due to
sampling changes, a change in shelf space or distribution – will thus lead
to complementary changes in brand response levels, regardless of any
advertising activity. There needs to be control for this during advertising
effectiveness analysis, to ensure that the impact of advertising is isolated
and correctly attributed.
The second influence is the degree to which the attribute defines the
category, or its prototypicality (Nedungadi & Hutchinson 1985; Ward
et al. 1992). The more often an attribute is mentioned across all brands,
the more prototypical it is considered to be (Rosch & Mervis 1975;
Romaniuk & Sharp 2000). For example, the attribute of ‘quick service’
would be more prototypical in the fast-food market than, say, ‘healthy’.
Empirically, all brands would gain more responses for ‘quick service’ than
they would for ‘healthy’. It would be expected that prototypicality levels
would change over time, as particular attributes become ‘standard’ in an
industry. For example, ‘has low carbohydrates’ in a food market would
have gained only a few responses for any food brand three years ago. Now,
however, the attribute would gain more responses across all brands as
consumers have become more aware of this feature within the food
market, and marketers focus on this attribute in their communications and
packaging. Likewise, prototypicality levels can decrease as attributes
become less relevant. For example, in the banking industry, it would be
expected that the prototypicality levels of ‘having convenient branches’
would have declined as other non-branch methods of doing banking have
increased.
Romaniuk and Sharp (2000) demonstrated a technique whereby an
expected response level for each brand on each attribute can be
established, by drawing on these two patterns of usage and prototypicality,
and utilising a chi-squared-type calculation. This expected value can then
be used to identify deviations, which can highlight each brand’s strengths
or weaknesses, relative to competitors. Given that the purpose of
advertising is to create these strengths, or reduce these weaknesses, we
suggest that this technique can be used to identify the impact of
advertising, by controlling for changes that are due to variations in usage
or prototypicality levels.

182
 International Journal of Market Research Vol. 48 Issue 2

Research method
This study is an evaluation of brand image studies from two different
markets: fast food and financial services. In both studies, brand
perceptions were measured using a free response attribute to brand
association method, which is commonly used in market research (Brown
1985). A number of brand names were read out to respondents, who were
told to record the brands. Then a randomised set of attributes was
provided and respondents were asked which of the brands, if any, they
associated with each of the attributes. The result is then the percentage of
the sample that associated each brand with each attribute, with raw
percentage changes determined by comparing the figures over time. An
example of this is shown in Table 1.
An alternative approach to determining the change in perceptual
responses over time is to calculate an ‘expected’ value. The approach we
use in this paper is based on the method demonstrated in Romaniuk and
Sharp (2000), whereby all of the brand and attribute data are recorded in
a contingency table. The row and column totals are then used in the
following manner to establish expected values:

Expected value (B1, A1) = Row total (A1) *Column total (B1)
Table total

This provides a figure for each brand, on every attribute, that can be
compared with the observed figures to produce the ‘deviation from
expected’ value. The differences in these deviations can then be compared
over time. So, rather than 56% followed by 50% of respondents
associating a brand with an attribute (a change of –6% over time), the
deviations might be +13 and +10, which would be a difference of
3 percentage points over time.
This study analyses the two approaches, comparing changes in both raw
percentages and deviations from expected figures for the same
brand/attribute combination – for example, Brand X for ‘good value’ raw

Table 1 Results for Brand X: raw percentage and deviations from expected changes over
time

Raw percentage changes Deviations from expected changes

Attribute Wave 1 Wave 2 Change (W2 – W1) Wave 1 Wave 2 Change (W2 – W1)
Good value 56 50 –6 +13 +10 –3pp
Trustworthy 45 50 +5 +6 +7 +1pp

183
Evaluating advertising effects on brand perceptions

percentage change (–6 percentage points) would be compared with

deviation from expected change (–3 percentage points). Based on the prior
discussion our hypotheses are:

H1: Controlling for usage and prototypicality patterns will

result in fewer changes over time being evident.
H2: The changes that are apparent when usage and
prototypicality are taken into account will better reflect the
messages of the advertising in the market.

Results

Study 1: fast-food market

In the case of the fast-food study, two waves of cross-sectional research
were conducted (during August 2001 and February 2002). A telephone
survey was conducted each time with a random sample of over 600
respondents. For the brand perception measurement questions,
respondents were asked to record a given set of five brands in the market.
A randomised set of 20 attributes was read out and respondents were
asked which (if any) of the five brands they associated with each attribute.
The brands included in the list were a mix of companies offering ‘dairy
treats’ (ice cream, milkshakes, etc.). The included attributes thus featured
product-related – ‘sells ice cream cakes’ and ‘has a wide range of ice cream
flavours’ – as well as general attributes such as ‘offers value for money’
and ‘has something for all the family’. The attribute list came from past
qualitative research, with input from the marketing department of the
company sponsoring the research.

Changes over time

There were a total of 16 statistically significant changes in raw percentages
over time at the p < 0.05 level. The majority of changes were decreases (14
compared with 2 increases). There were fewer changes evident in the
deviations analysis (only 7; 6 decreases, 1 increase). For example, the raw
percentage change in responses on the attribute ‘something for all the
family’ for Brand 5 was –6 percentage points, compared with the change
in deviations from expected values, which was zero. The removal of ‘noise’
due to external influences means the focus is now on far fewer deviations.
This supports H1, that controlling for these known patterns reduces the
number of changes of interest across waves. Percentage changes over time for

184
 International Journal of Market Research Vol. 48 Issue 2

a subset of brand/attribute combinations are illustrated for both approaches

in Table 2. Shaded in light grey are the changes that moved from being signifi-
cant to being insignificant over time (a total of 12 were evident across all
brands and attributes). Shaded in dark grey are the two that changed from
being insignificant to being significant when deviations were involved.
The difference in the number of perceptual response changes identified
as significant was particularly noticeable for Brand 5. An examination of
the raw percentage changes alone may have led to the interpretation that
there was a problem with the advertising for the brand. There was a
decrease over time of perceptual responses linking Brand 5 with ‘wide
flavour range’ (–5%), ‘value for money’ (–6%) and ‘has something for all
the family’ (–6%). However, by looking at changes in deviation from
expected figures (and therefore controlling for the effect that the change in
usage has had on attribute responses), it is obvious that, for these
attributes, there has been little or no change in association with the brand
over time. The reason for this decrease becomes evident when we compare
the brand usage figures over time. Brand 5 had 14% fewer users in the
second wave. This reduction in usage may be of concern (indicating the
brand has a distribution problem or there was a sampling issue with one
of the waves), but this change should not affect the evaluation of the
advertising.
For the attribute ‘has unique ice cream flavours’, Brand 5 actually
increased in brand/attribute association over time (4 percentage points),

Table 2 Fast-food market: raw percentage changes over time compared with deviations from
expected changes over time

Brand 1 Brand 2 Brand 3 Brand 4 Brand 5

Dev Dev Dev Dev Dev
from from from from from
Attribute Raw exp Raw exp Raw exp Raw exp Raw exp
Smoothies –1 0 –3 –1 –3 –3 –2 0 1 4
Wide flavour range –3 –1 –1 2 –1 0 –6* –2 –5 1
Always new products –1 –2 1 1 14* 12* 0 –2 –7* –8*
Premium quality –3 –2 0 1 0 0 0 2 –4 –1
Unique flavours –2 0 0 2 1 2 –11* –8* –1 4
Value for money 1 2 –7* –5* 1 2 1 3 –6* –2
Something for all the family –2 –1 –5 –2 –1 0 –1 3 –6* 0
Sells ice cream cakes 2 1 2 2 –3 –5 –1 –2 5* 4*

185
Evaluating advertising effects on brand perceptions

which was not picked up in the raw percentage figures (which indicated a
decrease of 1%). Similarly, for Brand 3, for ‘sells ice cream cakes’, an
insignificant change of –3% becomes a more significant –5%.
To test H2, we compared the remaining significant attribute changes
with the messages of campaigns run by these five brands. Only two brands
(3 and 5) ran campaigns with sufficient mass-media weight to expect
change. Therefore we would expect no major positive changes from
Brands 1, 2 or 4, but possibly negative changes if Brands 3 or 5 were
successful in building stronger links to specific attributes. During the time
between data collection for the two waves, Brand 3 ran a campaign that
emphasised a ‘new menu’ with regularly changing products. The focus of
the campaign was continuously on a ‘changing menu’ with specific sub-
campaigns focusing on individual product sets at any one point in time.
This campaign was run extensively and the advertising spend was at least
20 times that of the nearest competitor. This activity can be linked to the
positive increase in deviation for the attribute ‘always introducing new
products’, which is the only significant positive change for this brand.
Brand 5 ran campaigns focusing on two products – new favours of
smoothies and ice cream cakes. This is apparent in a positive change in
deviation from expected figures, for the attributes ‘sells ice cream cakes’,
‘unique flavours’ and ‘sells smoothies’. Further, a greater negative
deviation is evident for Brand 3 on this attribute, suggesting the
strengthening of the link by Brand 5 has weakened the presence of Brand
3. This is one example where controlling for known patterns influences the
interpretation of results by highlighting a change that would otherwise
have gone unnoticed.
Looking at the raw percentages in Table 2, it would have been assumed
that both Brand 2 and Brand 5 suffered decreases across many of the
brand/attribute combinations. But when the figures for Brand 5 are
adjusted to control for known patterns, the decrease in brand/attribute
association is reduced. While Brand 4 (and to a lesser extent Brand 5)
suffered decreases for the attribute ‘wide flavour range’ in the raw
percentages, when usage and prototypicality is controlled for, these
differences are also reduced. Given there were no campaigns directly
focused on this attribute, the latter result is more in line with what would
be expected from the campaigns actually run. Therefore the results
support H2. Incorporating prior knowledge and controlling for known
patterns meant the changes that could be attributed to advertising activity
were more easily detected and interpreted, thus providing a better measure
of advertising effectiveness.

186
 International Journal of Market Research Vol. 48 Issue 2

Study 2: financial services market

In Study 1 the advertising environment was quite easily defined, with two
brands conducting major campaigns and the others off air. Some markets
have much more complex environments where most brands are advertising
and often have several campaigns running at once. One such market is
financial services. The data for Study 2 were collected as part of an
ongoing tracking project for a financial institution. The data were reported
in quarterly blocks, where 12 weeks of data constituted one quarter. This
study focuses on quarters 3 and 4 of 2003, with a sample size of
approximately 900 respondents each quarter.
Respondents were asked to record a given set of seven brands in the
financial services market. Then a randomised set of 19 attributes were listed
and respondents were asked which, if any, of the seven brands they associated
with each attribute. Attributes were again product-related (for example, ‘offers
credit cards’, ‘has great home loans’, ‘offers investment products’) and general
attributes (for example, ‘is friendly and helpful’, ‘would have a lot of satis-
fied customers’ and ‘would be a good partner for increasing your wealth’).

Changes over time

Across the seven brands by 19 attributes (133 combinations), there was a
total of 39 (30%) statistically significant changes in raw percentages at
the p < 0.05 level. In this case, the majority of changes were increases (32,
compared with 7 decreases). However, when we control for usage and
prototypicality patterns, the number of significant changes reduces to only
four. In the financial services market, the brand/attribute associations were
more stable over the two quarters. This supports H1.
Table 3 shows the changes in deviation from expected values for a subset
of brand/attribute combinations. Here, a comparison of results can be
made between both methods. The shaded boxes highlight when there is a
discrepancy in the two approaches. Over all brand-attribute relationships
there were 36 discrepancies; 32 occurred when a significant change in the
raw percentages became insignificant. Examples of where this occurs in
the table are shaded in light grey. For example, for Brand D, on the attri-
bute ‘investment products’, the raw percentage change in respondents who
made the association over time increased by 13 percentage points, compared
with the deviations from the expected increase of 1 percentage point. Four
discrepancies occurred when a previously insignificant change became more
significant, illustrated by dark grey shading in the table. An example from
Table 3 is Brand B and has the ‘full range’, which goes from no change in
the raw percentages to decreasing by 5%.

187
188
Table 3 Financial services market: raw percentage changes over time compared with deviations from expected changes over time

Brand A Brand B Brand C Brand D Brand E Brand F Brand G

Dev Dev Dev Dev Dev Dev Dev
from from from from from from from
Attribute Raw exp Raw exp Raw exp Raw exp Raw exp Raw exp Raw exp
Investment products 9 1 6 –4 6 1 13 1 6 –1 6 –1 14 3
Satisfied customers –2 0 1 2 –5 0 –1 0 –4 –1 0 1 –3 –2
Experts 2 –1 4 –1 –2 –2 8 2 3 1 3 0 5 0
Is geared to business 1 –3 3 –2 4 4 9 3 2 –1 4 1 4 –1
Evaluating advertising effects on brand perceptions

Has the full range 3 0 0 –5 0 2 8 1 1 –1 2 –1 8 3

Would offer good value 4 3 2 0 –1 0 3 1 0 –1 0 –1 0 –2
Is progressive 2 0 5 2 –3 –3 4 1 0 –1 1 0 3 1
Confident 7 1 7 0 3 –1 9 0 5 –1 6 1 8 0
A bank for everyone 1 0 6 4 –5 –3 0 –3 3 3 1 0 1 –1
Home loans 3 3 –1 –2 –7 –5 2 0 5 5 1 1 –1 –2
Credit cards 6 –1 9 –1 6 5 7 –5 7 1 7 1 9 –1
 International Journal of Market Research Vol. 48 Issue 2

For the attribute ‘investment products’ we can see that all brands record
an increase in raw percentages, which disappear once usage and
prototypicality are taken into account. In this instance, the wave 3 survey
was conducted post-end of financial year, where investments, as a
category, were less prevalent in the marketplace (as people were paying off
their taxes and/or waiting for returns). However for wave 4 everything
was back to its normal level, so what looks like an apparent rise is really
just a ‘seasonal’ effect. We see a similar pattern occurring across all brands
for the attribute ‘confident’, which also showed a systematic increase in
the number of overall responses, or prototypicality, over the two time
periods. This again reinforces the benefits of controlling for these external
patterns.
To test H2, we examined the media schedule for each of the brands for
each quarter. While putting an advertisement to air does not guarantee
effectiveness (some advertisements do not affect any brand perceptions) we
should be able to link positive changes back to specific campaigns. As a
further check we should not see major positive changes that cannot be
linked to specific campaigns. Brand A has no deviations that remain
significant. Brand B is a community-based bank and ran a corporate
campaign around this community-based positioning, and we see a
consistent positive change for a ‘bank for everyone’.
Brand C ran a credit card-based campaign in wave 4, which appears to
be linked to its consistent increase in that attribute. It also has a consistent
decrease in home loans, which is probably linked to the only major
increase in that attribute for Brand E. Brand E ran a home loan campaign
during wave 4, and this appears linked to a positive change for that brand
on that attribute. There were no significant changes for Brands D, F or G.
Two of the three brands did run campaigns, with Brand D running one on
‘guides to buying houses’, and Brand F running a corporate campaign and
one about its home loan products. These campaigns appear not to have
had a noticeable effect on the buyer memory structures measured here.
Therefore while there was definitely advertising that did not affect the
brand perceptions included in this research, the changes we could identify
after controlling for usage and prototypicality did seem to be able to be
explained through the advertising messages put forward. This provides
support for H2.

189
Evaluating advertising effects on brand perceptions

Discussion
This paper illustrates how controlling for known patterns in brand
attribute responses can lead to more clarity in interpreting the impact of
advertising. The two patterns are the effect of usage and the
prototypicality of the attributes within any particular survey. While
changes in these factors in themselves can provide insight, they cloud the
ability to detect advertising-related changes. Therefore we recommend
controlling for, but not ignoring, these wider market changes.
We demonstrated, using data across two very different markets, how the
analysis of raw percentage changes in responses can lead managers to
draw erroneous conclusions. The changes in perceptual responses from
one wave of the study to another were overstated, and some important
message-related changes were missed.
Controlling for these patterns reduces the number of major differences
to focus on, and is therefore easier to interpret. We were able to illustrate
this by comparing the messages from specific campaigns with the
significant differences over the two waves. While we recognise that this
can be a subjective assessment, it does appear to have face validity.
Importantly, the objective assessment of the reduction of the brand-
attribute relationships that warrant attention, using an approach that
controls for known patterns, provided a clear benefit to those interpreting
brand tracking data.

Limitations and future research

A key limitation of this approach it that it is confined to a free-choice,
‘pick any’ approach of brand-attribute relationship measurement. Further
research should explore whether similar calculations are needed (and
indeed possible) for other brand-attribute measures, such as ranking or
rating.
Further replication is needed across markets and campaigns to further
expand the generalisability of this finding. Additionally, while it is
encouraging that improvement in interpretation was evident with what are
relatively small changes over waves, validation should be undertaken
when there have been major market shifts. Similarly, the stability of results
when brand or attribute lists change should also be explored. A useful
direction for future research might also be to compare different techniques
for obtaining expected results for brand perceptions, such as the
Romaniuk and Sharp (2000) method with an additive logit model
approach, to improve our understanding of perceptual data and what any

190
 International Journal of Market Research Vol. 48 Issue 2

brand ‘should’ score. The ability to derive meaningful expected values is

an important area for the future of marketing metrics.
Future research could also examine the link between attribute response
changes, when usage and prototypicality changes are taken into account,
and future behaviour/brand performance. Quantifying the relationship
between the amount of TARPs spent and changes in deviations from
expected would also be a promising step to quantifying return on
investment from advertising spend.

References
Aaker, D.A. (1992) Managing the most important asset: brand equity. Planning
Review, Special Issue, 20, Sept./Oct., pp. 56–58.
Aaker, D.A. (1996) Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California
Management Review, 38, 3, Spring, pp. 102–120.
Ailawadi, K.L., Lehmann, D.R. & Neslin, S.A. (2003) Revenue premium as an
outcome measure of brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 67, pp. 1–17.
Barwise, T.P. & Ehrenberg, A.S.C. (1985) Consumer beliefs and brand usage.
Journal of the Market Research Society, 27, 2, April, pp. 81–93.
Bird, M., Channon, C. & Ehrenberg, A.S.C. (1970) Brand image and brand usage.
Journal of Marketing Research, 7, August, pp. 307–314.
Brown, G. (1985) Tracking studies and sales effects: a UK perspective. Journal of
Advertising Research, 25, February, pp. 52–64.
Ehrenberg, A.S.C., Barnard, N., Kennedy, R. & Bloom, H. (2002) Brand advertising
as creative publicity. Journal of Advertising Research, 42, pp. 7–18.
Feldwick, P. (1996) The four ages of ad evaluation. Admap, April, pp. 25–27.
Gardner, B.B. & Levy, S.J. (1955) The product and the brand. Harvard Business
Review, March/April, pp. 33–39.
Hoek, J., Dunnett, J., Wright, M. & Gendall, P. (2000) Descriptive and evaluative
attributes: what relevance to marketers? Journal of Product & Brand
Management, 9, 6, pp. 415–435.
Jones, J.P. (1990) Advertising: strong force or weak force? Two views an ocean
apart. International Journal of Advertising, 9, pp. 233–246.
Keller, K.L. (1993) Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand
equity. Journal of Marketing, 57, January, pp. 1–22.
Keller, K.L. (2003) Brand synthesis: the multidimensionality of brand knowledge.
Journal of Consumer Research, 29, March, pp. 595–601.
McDonald, C. (2000) Tracking Advertising and Monitoring Brands. Admap
Publications.
Nedungadi, P. (1990) Recall and consumer consideration sets: influencing choice
without altering brand evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, December,
pp. 263–276.
Nedungadi, P. & Hutchinson, J.W. (1985) The prototypicality of brands:
relationships with brand awareness, preference and usage. Advances in Consumer
Research, 12, pp. 498–503.

191
Evaluating advertising effects on brand perceptions

Romaniuk, J. & Sharp, B. (2000) Using known patterns in image data to determine
brand positioning. International Journal of Market Research, 42, 2,
Spring/Summer, pp. 219–230.
Rosch, E. & Mervis, C.B. (1975) Family resemblances: studies in the internal
structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, pp. 573–605.
Ward, J.C., Bitner, M.J. & John, B. (1992) Measuring the prototypicality and
meaning of retail environments. Journal of Retailing, 68, 2, pp. 194–220.

192