EFFECTS OF DISLIKED EXECUTIONALTECHNIQUES IN ADVERTISING:

A FIVE COUNTRY COMPARISON

Kim-Shyan Fam, Victoria University of Wellington (New Zealand)Reinhard Grohs, University of Innsbruck (Austria)

David S. Waller, University of Technology, Sydney (Australia)

ABSTRACT

This study analyzes Asian consumers'attitudes towards disliked televisioncommercials to provide an insight into theconstmct of advertising dislikeability.Dislikeability is an important conceptbecause if certain attributes of anadvertisement are disliked, this can lead topotential customers disliking the brand,being dissatisfled with the advertiser,complaining about the advertisement, and/orrefusing to purchase the advertised product.

A total of 1,000 people werequestioned in five Asian cities (Hong Kong,Shanghai, Jakarta, Bangkok and Mumbai)using telephone interviews. The study revealsseven dislike attributes: bad style of the ad,meaningless storyline, ugly or stupid char-acters, exaggerating product effectiveness,irresponsible or misleading content, scary orviolent characters/settings, and hard-sellapproaches. Findings from this study showthat there is a close relationship betweendisliking television advertising and purchaseintention. Additionally, the importance of theseven dislikeability dimensions differsbetween cities and product categories.Managerial implications are offered fororganizations advertising in Asia.

INTRODUCTION

Consumers' dislike of televisionadvertising has been observed for years byseveral researchers (see Alwitt and Prabhaker1992; Andrews 1989; Bartos 1981; Bartosand Dunn 1974; Bauer and Greyser 1968;Bush, Smith and Martin 1999; James andKover 1992; Jozsa et al. 2010; Keane and

Fam 2005; Zanot 1981). According to Alwittand Prabhaker (1994), the dislike of televisionadvertising cuts across demographicboundaries, with it more often than not beingperceived to be an unwelcome intmsion, andregarded by many consumers as a constantsource of irritation and dissatisfaction withthe notion of "free television programs."With the increasing proliferation of mediavehicles and subsequent messages, consumershave become extremely "ad-literate", therebydeveloping cynical attitudes towardstelevision advertising. In addition, thegeneric concept of television advertising canbe off-putting to the average consumer, andmany consumers often make a consciouseffort to avoid such advertisingcommunications. As a result they are inclinedto 'switch-off before the first advertisementappears, watch non-commercial televisionstations if they are available, or download ad-free television programs online. In fact, bothacademics and practitioners contend it hasbecome second nature for consumers to 'zap'television channels or buy programs on DVD,or use the intemet to avoid watchingadvertisements (Postman 1986; Reeves andNass 1996; Livingstone 2002; Cho and Cheon2004). However, it is a rare occurrence forpeople to tune out because of an individualadvertisement, as the concept of televisionadvertising is disliked more than individualadvertisements (Biel and Bridgwater 1990;Hollis 1995).

If consumers decide to watchtelevision commercials, the research focusshifts to the effectiveness of specificadvertisements. One important concept fordetermining how consumers respond toadvertisements is 'ad likeability'. Prior to the

70 Disliked Executional Techniques in Advertising: A Five-Country Comparison

1980s, the literature rarely took any notice ofthe potential influence consumer attitudestowards advertisements could have on brandattitudes. MacKenzie, Lutz and Belch (1986)and MacKenzie and Lutz (1989) discoveredthrough laboratory experiments that attitudetowards the advertisement (Aad) has aninfluence on brand attitude. Haley andBaldinger (1991) identified and emphasizedthe role of 'liking' a commercial as animportant evaluative measurement. Sincethen several other studies showed the positiveeffects of advertising likeability (e.g., Aakerand Stayman 1990; Biel and Bridgwater1990; Du Plessis 1994; Walker and Dubitsky1994; Fam and Waller 2006; Smit, van Meursand Neijens 2006; Fam 2008). Biel andBridgwater (1990) and Fam (2008) exploredthe components of ad likeability and identifysix main likeable dimensions labeled as:entertaining, energetic or stimulating,relevant, empathetic, familiar and irritating ina review by Smit, van Meurs and Neijens(2006). Another finding of these studies isthat the overall contribution each of thesedimensions makes towards explaining adlikeability differs from one product categoryto another. On an aggregate level, however,the authors show that liked ads are moreeffective as they lead to higher preferencesand purchase intentions (Kennedy and Sharp1998; Smit, van Meurs and Neijens 2006).

While there have been numerousstudies on ad likeability, there has been lesson ad dislikeability. However, dislikeabilityis an important concept because if certainattributes of an advertisement are disliked,this can lead to potential customers dislikingthe brand, being dissatisfied with theadvertiser, complaining about theadvertisement, and/or refusing to purchase theadvertised product.

To help fill this gap the researchproject described in this article focuses onuncovering consumers' attitudes towardsdisliked television commercials in fiveheavily populated Asian cities: Hong Kong,Shanghai, Jakarta, Bangkok and Mumbai.The aims of the study are to (1) investigate

the 'ad dislikeability' construct and identifyconstruct categories that contribute to addislikeability; (2) empirically assess how thedislikeability dimensions affect purchaseintentions; and (3) test whether importance ofthe dislikeability categories and effects onpurchase intentions differ across productcategories and the five cities. Results fromthis study will add to the body of knowledgeas, even though prior studies have establishedthe various dimensions of ad likeability andindicated the presence of a relationshipbetween ad likeability and performance, fewhave examined disliked advertisements.Further, according to Alwitt and Prabhaker(1994), for advertisers to be successñil,marketers need to identify the appropriatereasons for the dislike of advertisements andaddress the reasons accordingly. The findingswill enable a better theoretical understandingof ad dislikeability, its facets andconsequences, as well as the managerialimplications for international advertisers,particularly in Asia.

BACKGROUND

Ad Dislikeability

According to Biel and Bridgewater(1990) ad likeability is defined as a favorableresponse to a particular advertisement. Incontrast to liked television advertisements, adisliked television commercial is likely tolower consumers' positive attitudes towardsan advertised brand (Alwitt and Prabhaker1994). However, this does not mean thatliked and disliked advertisements are atopposite ends of a spectrum. Existing studieshave been concerned with belief indicatorsthat drive the attitude towards advertising ingeneral, which follow "general attitudetheory" (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). Authorssuggest that the perception of advertisingrelates to underlying beliefs about severalfacets, and focusing on the disliked drivers ofadvertising, these studies identify falsehoodand deception (Ford, Smith and Swasy 1990;Muehling 1987), materialism (Larkin 1977),

Volume 24, 2011 71

value corruption (PoUay and Mittal 1993),and no sense (Bauer and Greyser 1968) asbeing associated with an overall negativeperception of advertising.

Therefore, ad likeability studiesprovide evidence for a negative factor thatreduces ad likeability and this factor identifieswhether the advertisement possesses negativecharacteristics. Authors use different terms todescribe this negative factor, such asirritating, rubs the wrong way, alienating,tasteless, or confusing (Aaker and Stayman1990; Biel and Bridgwater 1990; Franzen1994; Smit, van Meurs and Neijens 2006).Still, few studies have explored the differentcomponents of the negative factor (Jozsa et al.2010). Negative attitudes towards specificads can be caused by perceptions such as anover-used thus worn-out message; familiar,phony or illogical reasoning. If arguments areunrealistic or exaggerated, consumers mayconsider them to be an insult to theirintelligence, and consequently theadvertisement receives a negative response, asit is disliked. Further, if the advertisement isdisliked then credibility may be lost asnegative connotations develop, which can bea long-term problem for the advertiser.Collett (1994) finds a strong connectionbetween disliking an ad and persuasion.Therefore, if consumers dislike a commercial,their brand attitude is adversely affected,especially when emotional appeals areinvolved.

Due to the observed infiuence onconsumers' brand attitudes, this study willinvestigate the construct of ad dislikeability,its dimensions and its effect on consumerresponse to advertising. While a number ofstudies have identified the components of adlikeability (e.g. Biel and Bridgwater 1990;Fam 2008), little is known about the constructad dislikeability and its dimensions. Foracademics it would be helpful to discover theunderlying attributes for disliking anadvertisement, while for practitioners it wouldbe useful if these attributes could be identifiedin order to alter consumers' beliefs about an

advertisement. To obtain this information,the study's first research question is:

RQl: What are the dimensions thatconstitute ad dislikeability? '

(i.e., identify categories of dislikedexecution techniques in advertising.)

Culture and Ad Dislikeability

Culture is basically a society'spersonality, and exists to satisfy the needs ofthe people within a society, offering order andguidance, in the form of standards and rules,by providing known niethods of satisfyingpersonal and social needs (Bednall and Kanuk1997; Schiffman et al. 1997). This includescustoms that consist of routine or everydaybehaviors, such as what we eat, what we say,what we like and dislike, what we buy, orwho we want to be associated with. Cultureis learned, and at an early age people begin toacquire a set of beliefs, values and customsfrom the social environment that constitutetheir culture. In any culture, the core beliefsand values are inherited by children fi-om theirparents and are emphasized by socialinstitutions such as schools, religious groups,businesses and government. For marketers,de Mooij (1998, p. 61) claims:

' Understanding the concept of culture and theconsequences of cultural differences willmake marketing and advertising peoplerealise that one message, whether verbal orvisual, can never reach one global audience,because there is not one global culturecomprised of people with identical values.Worldwide, there is a great variety of values.'

Scholars have fi-equently observed that thesalience of values varies from culture toculture (e.g., Hofstede 1980; Lynn 1991;Triandis 1989). Consequently, some authorshold that one would expect differences inadvertising strategies and execution stylesacross countries (e.g., Albers-Miller and

72 Disliked Executional Techniques in Advertising: A Eive-Country Comparison

Stafford 1999; Tai 1997). Researchers indeedgenerally have found differences inadvertising content, style and strategy acrosscountries (Aaker and Norris 1982; Cheng andSchweitzer 1996; Madden, Caballero andMatsukubo 1986; Rice and Lu 1988;Weinberger and Spotts 1989; Zandpour,Chang and Catalano 1992; Lepkowska-White,Brashear and Weinberger 2003). Notsurprisingly, a number of studies show thatadvertisements that reflect some local culturalvalues are more persuasive than those thatignore them (Gregory and Munch 1997; Hanand Shavitt 1994; Hong, Muderrisoglu andZinkhan 1987; Madden, Caballero andMatsukubo 1986; Taylor, Miracle and Wilson1997).

Differences in the salience of valueslogically should reveal differences in theperception of whether an ad is disliked.Additionally, the facets that constitutedisliking may differ among Cultures.Therefore, this study aims to investigatedifferences in the degree and composition ofdislikeability between residents with variedcultural values and religions. Accordingly,the second research question we address is:

RQ 2: Do the dislikedexecution techniques differbetween the five citiesthat are culturally different?

Product Types and Ad Dislikeability

Jones (2000) reports that, althoughconsumers in each continent share similarneeds, they vary in the way they characterizeproducts that can satisfy these needs.Furthermore, Lepkowska-White, Brashearand Weinberger (2003) claim that advertisingappeals should be matched with producttypes. This is because the type of'information search' carried out by consumersis closely related to the types of needs theproduct satisfies. For instance, Ratchford(1987) claims that informative products, suchas homes, large appliances and cars, are veryimportant to consumers and satisfy utilitarian

needs of consumption, and so information onquality and price are valued. For affectivegoods such as sports cars, jewellery andfashion clothing, which frilfil ego-gratification, self-expression and socialmotives of consumption, emotionalinformation is often sought by consumers. Inthe case of habit-forming products (e.g.beauty-aids and over-the-counter dmgs) andself-satisfactory goods (e.g. snack foods,cigarettes, and soft drinks), Ratchford (1987)suggests providing heuristic information, asthese types of goods are of low importance toconsumers.

Laskey, Fox and Crask (1994) findthat executional style impacts on commercialeffectiveness, but the effective style tends todiffer by product involvement. For instance,Johar and Sirgy (1991) and Sirgy and Johar(1992) show that for consumers who arehighly involved with a product, utilitarianinformation is more effective, and for thosewho are not involved with a product, valueexpressive advertisements are morepersuasive. Fam and Grohs (2007) show thatthe effectiveness of different liked executiontechniques depends on product category, forexample, when advertising services theentertainment characteristics of theadvertisement are particularly important. Onthe other hand, respondents are more likely tobuy more clothing and accessories if theyperceive an advertisement to be trendy, andpersonal care items are bought more ifadvertisements are entertaining andemphasize the relevance of the brand for theuser.

In relation to disliked execution styles,this research aims to explore the addislikeability constmct and its componentsacross product categories. The aim is toidentify whether the composition of addislikeability depends on product category,and so the research question is:

RQ 3: Do the disliked executiontechniques differ betweendifferent product categories?

Volume 24, 2011 73

Purchase Intention

Previous studies on ad likeability (e.g.,Smit, van Meurs and Neijens 2006) show thata) the constmct consists of several facets ordimensions; b) it has a positive impact onbrand attitude and purchase intentions; and c)this impact depends on product category and,to a lesser degree, on cultural values. Withregard to ad dislikeability it is known from anumber of studies that ad dislikeability is anegative belief facet of the ad likeabilityconstmct; and negatively affects brandattitude. Additionally, ad dislikeabilitydepends on the particular products beingdisliked when advertised, such as femininehygiene products (e.g., Rehman and Brooks1987; Rickard 1994). However, no study todate has examined how ad dislikeabilityaffects purchase intentions. To determine theeffects of specific disliked executiontechniques on purchase intentions andwhether they vary across cultures and withproduct type, the following research questionswere developed:

RQ 4: Do the disliked executiontechniques in advertising havean effect on purchase intention?

RQ 5: Do the disliked executiontechniques in advertising havedifferential effects on purchaseintention across the five cities thatare culturally different?

RQ 6: Do the disliked executiontechniques in advertising havedifferential effects on purchaseintention across different productcategories?

METHODOLOGY

Country/City Selection

To address the six research questions,information on the three dimensions ofdifferent disliked execution techniques.

different product categories, and differentcountries was required. The questionnaireused was part of a larger study (Jozsa et al.2010) and was constmcted to provideinformation on the first two dimensions;namely different executional techniques andproduct categories.

Data was collected by telephoneinterviews with consumers living in fivecosmopolitan Asian cities: Hong Kong,Shanghai, Jakarta, Bangkok and Mumbai.These cities represent four countries (i.e.,China, Indonesia, Thailand and India),although it is noted that Hong Kong is part ofChina, its status as a world city, and its longhistory of Westem infiuence, culture, heritageand economic development, warrants a citystate treatment. Consequently, Hong Kongwill be referred to as a 'country' for thepurposes of this study.

These five cities were chosen for thisstudy because they represent diverse culturalvalues, especially in terms of politics,economic status, and religion. While Hall(1976) claims that Asia is a high-contextsociety, there are, in fact, degrees ofdifference. to Hofstede (1980), India isrelatively more individualist compared withHong Kong, Indonesia and Thailand.Indonesians strongly believe that there shouldbe inequality in status, but this view is notstrongly accepted by the people of HongKong, Thailand and India. In relation touncertainty avoidance, Thais feel morethreatened by unclear, unstmctured orunpredictable situations relative to the peopleof Hong Kong, Indonesia and India. Finally,the people of Hong Kong are more masculineand have a more long-term orientation thantheir counterparts in the other countries.

Politically, China is a communistcountry under one-party control whereby itspresident is elected by communist party'delegates' for a five-year term. Hong Konghas been a special administrative region ofChina since 1997, and its chief executive, ashead of the territory, govems an 800-memberelectoral committee appointed by the ChineseGovemment. India is the most populous

74 Disliked Executional Techniques in Advertising: A Five-Country Comparison

liberal democracy in the world, with aparliamentary system that has a president ashead of state. Thailand is currently beingmied by a military junta after a coup inSeptember 2006, and has a constitutionalmonarchy as its head of state. The Republicof Indonesia is a nation of 17,508 islandsconsisting of numerous distinct ethnic,linguistic, and religious groups, and itspresident is directly voted for by the peoplefor a five-year term (CIA World Fact Book2011).

Among the five countries. Hong Kongis the richest in terms of per capita income. Ithas a GNI (Gross National Income) per capitaof US$27,670, followed by Thailand(US$2,750), China (US$1,740), Indonesia(US$1,280) and India (US$730) (Worid Bank2007). Hong Kong is an important centre forintemational finance and trade. It is a highly-developed capitalist economy built on apolicy of free market enterprise with lowtaxation and no govemment intervention. Incontrast, although China now enjoys amarket-oriented economy, it operates within arigid political fi-amework under communistparty control. The economies of Thailand andIndonesia are market-based with thegovemment playing a significant role. In thecase of India, the economy encompassestraditional village farming and modemagriculture, with services, such as IT andbusiness process outsourcing, are its majorsource of economic growth, accounting formore than 60% of India's output (CIA WorldFact Book 2011).

In terms of religion, the majority ofthe Hong Kong population practicesBuddhism and Taoism, with Christiansrepresenting 10% of its total population(World Bank 2007). Confucianism also has aprofound infiuence (Samovar, Porter andMcDaniel 2007). The People's Republic ofChina is officially secular and atheist,however. Buddhism and Taoism, togetherwith an underlying Confucian morality, arethe dominant religions of China, the world'smost populous country with over 1.3 billioninhabitants (World Bank 2007). India is the

world's second most populous country withHinduism being the most practiced religion,followed by Islam and Christianity (WorldBank 2007). Thailand is considered to be theBuddhist kingdom, while ancestorworshipping and a strong sense of hospitalityand generosity are also an essential part ofThai spiritual practice. Indonesia is theworld's fourth most populous country and themost populous Muslim-majority nation.

The total main mass media (television,newspapers and magazines) spending in thefive countries in 2005 was US$48.84 billion(Nielsen Media 2005). Television dominatedthe main media spending at 66%, followed bynewspapers (29%) and magazines (5%). Interms of major market spend within the fivecountries, China's main media accounted for56% of main media spend measured followedby Hong Kong (7%), India (4%), Indonesia(4%) and Thailand (3%) (Nielsen Media2005).

Finally a point worth noting is thatwith the inclusion in this study of China, Indiaand Indonesia, three of the world's mostpopulous countries, the findings will be ofsignificant value to intemational advertisersseeking a market share in these emergingeconomies. Given the diversity of culturalvalues among the five cities, it will be usefulto explore the effectiveness of different adappeals among the urban young adults wholive there.

Questionnaire Design and Data Collection

The relevant ad dislikeabilitydimensions were derived directly fromconsumer perceptions. In a telephone surveyrespondents recollected televisionadvertisements they disliked and explainedwhy they disliked them. Specifically,respondents were asked to nominate threeadvertisements that they disliked, and askedto give as many key reasons as possible whythey disliked the advertisements. Thenrespondents indicated whether they boughtthe brand/product in the advertisements moreor less often, or if their purchase decisions

Volume 24, 2011 75

remained the same after exposure to theadvertisements. Additionally, respondentsprovided demographic information aboutthemselves, including gender, age, personalincome, education, and religion.

This study followed the strategy ofmatched samples (Hofstede 1991), so thatrather than trying to draw representativesamples from the populations of the fivecountries involved, it surveyed well-defined,homogeneous samples which differed innationality but were alike in as many aspectsas possible. Therefore, the criteria used toselect the 200 young adults in each city forthe telephone interview were as follows:every third person listed in the local telephonedirectory aged between 25 and 35-years-oldwho spent at least five hours or more onaverage watching television each week, andwho fitted into class A, B, or C+. Class C+was equivalent to having a personal grossincome per annum of HK$84,000 in HongKong, RMB38,000 in China; Rupiahs 45million in Indonesia; Baht 165,000 inThailand; and Rupees 210,000 in India (LoweAdvertising, 2005). In essence, these urbanyoung adults were selected because they hadthe economic ability to purchase theadvertised brands. A checklist was given toeach interviewer to ensure that the selectedrespondents met the criteria set out for eachcity. To ensure an even split of males/femalesand age groups (25-30; 31-35 years),interviewers were instructed to stopinterviewing respondents once their quota wasmet.

A professional research agency withlocal subsidiaries in each of the five cities wasengaged to carry out the research project,which was sponsored by Lowe Advertising(HK) Ltd. The first author of this articleworked closely with the project sponsor indesigning, developing and piloting the semi-structured questionnaire. Pre-testing feedbackfrom interviewers suggested that the interviewshould last about 25 minutes withoutrespondents tiring. Telephone interviewingwas deemed to be the most suitable methodfor this study because it allowed respondents

to offer interviewers their top-of-mindthoughts about the advertisement/s that theydisliked. The respondents' thoughts relatingto the advertisements were elicited with thesequestions:

"/ would like you to think aboutadvertisements you have seen recently on TVwhich you disliked (i.e., find disagreeable,feeling of not liking, feeling against - OxfordDictionary) "

"Could you please describe for me the firstadvertisement that comes to mind that youdislike?"

"Just briefly tell me what it is about? "

"Now, think of the next advertisement thatcomes to mind that you dislike, could youplease tell me what it is about? "

"Thanks. Is there any other advertisementthat you dislike? Please tell me what it isabout?"

For product category and purchaseintention, these questions were asked:

"Now, thinking about the first (second andthird) advertisement that you mentioned, canyou remember the name of theproduct/service that was being advertised? "

"Did you buy more, less or the same amountafter seeing the advertisement? "

These questions were translated intolocal language (Cantonese for Hong Kong;Mandarin for Shanghai; Bahasa Indonesia forJakarta; Hindi for Mumbai; and Thai forBangkok) by the research agency's locally-trained interviewers. Utilizing short, concisestatements with simple language, it was feltthat these questions were less likely to bemisinterpreted by respondents from differentcountries. Back translation was carried out bythe manager of each subsidiary and checkedby the first author of this article (who speaks

76 Disliked Executional Techniques in Advertising: A Five-Country Comparison

four languages: Cantonese, Mandarin, BahasaIndonesia and English) and the advertisingagency's director of strategic planning.Additionally, the first author had a sample ofthe television commercials from each city.This meant a cross check was made of therespondents' descriptions of theadvertisements and reasons for disliking themagainst the sample. The results showed thatthe descriptions provided by the respondentsmatched the sample commercials and theEnglish translations appeared to correctlydescribe the advertisements. Hence, theresponses were considered to be sufficientenough for conclusions to be drawn about thepopulation in relation to the study's purpose.

Ad Dislikeability Dimensions and Differ-ences among Cities and Product Categories

The 1,000 (200 per city) young adultsinterviewed by telephone were asked tonominate up to three advertisements that theydisliked and provide as many 'dislikeable'reasons as they wished. This format produced890 advertisements in total. From this list theproducüTsrand duplications mentioned by eachrespondent were deleted to eliminate any biasa respondent had towards a particular productcategory (see Biel and Bridgwater 1990).

This procedure resulted in 660nominated advertisements and 952 dislikeablereasons from the five cities' respondents.Five independent judges (graduate students ofMarketing, English and Economics) wererecruited and employed to develop productcategories from the 660 nominatedadvertisements. After being introduced to thecoding scheme they were divided into twogroups, with the first author leading one of thegroups. The eventual agreement between thetwo groups ranged between 90% and 92% forthe five cities and resulted in seven productcategories. Any differences were discussedand reconciled with the help of the firstauthor. The final categories were: services,durables, clothing and accessories, personalcare, drinks, foods, and addictive products.

In order to develop dislikeabilitydimensions from the data (RQ 1), the judgesthen coded the 'dislikeable reasons' intoattribute categories, i.e., disliked executiontechniques. The same five judges weretrained by the first author. Training sessionsbegan with an overview of content analysis,judge responsibilities and the coding scheme(l=present, O=absent). Judges were thengiven sample reasons and asked to 'create' asmany adjectives as they wished. Examples ofthese adjectives included ad is 'boring','looks stupid', 'scary', 'violent', to name afew. In applying the coding scheme, thejudges were instructed to make a decisionabout which one attribute should be allocatedto be the one best 'reason' for disliking theadvertisement. If the 'reason' was allocatedto a particular attribute, it received a ' 1' scorefor that attribute and a '0 ' score in all theothers. For instance, if the reason given bythe respondents was related to style, it wasnominated as ' 1 ' , if not it was assigned a '0 ' .After the judges confirmed they werecomfortable with the coding scheme andprocedure, they again gathered into twogroups and then categorized all the dislikeable'reasons'. Disagreements between the twogroups were discussed and reconciled, and the952 'reasons' were reduced to seven attributescategories. The final inter-judge reliabilitiesbetween the two groups exceeded thesuggested guideline of 85% (Kassarjian 1977)for the cities of interest.

RESULTS

Once the coding procedure wascomplete, seven 'dislikeable' attributescategories were identified:

1. Style: the ad is old-fashioned, repetitive,boring or annoying.2. Meaningless: the ad is irrelevant to theproduct, does not have a storyline or isdifficult to understand.3. Character: characters have badappearances or look stupid/ugly.

Volume 24, 2011 77

4. Exaggerating: the ad is exaggerated (adcontent/characters' facial expressions),exaggerates the product effectiveness, or isirrational/unrealistic.5. Irresponsible: the ad has an unhealthyconcept, misleads youngsters/people, ordenigrates the female image.6. Scary/IndecentA'^iolent: the ad(character/setting) is scary, violent, indecent,or contains a pomographic element.7. Hard-sell: the ad/slogan makes peoplefeel bad/resentflil towards it, too hard sell, ortoo directly criticized their competitor.

Most of the total 952 dislikeabilityreasons related to style (33.6%), followed bymeaningless (18.2%), exaggerating (15.7%),character (10.8%), irresponsible (10.6%),hard-sell (6.9%), and scary/indecent/violent(4.2%). RQ 1 has now been answered.

To address RQ 2, a city-by-citybreakdown of results shows that thelikelihood of mentioning negative attributeswith regard to TV advertisements differsconsiderably between the five cities (seeTable 1). Overall, people from Shanghaiwere most likely to mention at least onedisliked execufion technique (82%), followedby Jakarta (78%), Hong Kong (71%),Mumbai (57%), and Bangkok (43%).Adjusted for sample size in each city, theaverage number of disliked executiontechniques per respondent was calculated.Respondents from Hong Kong mentioned onaverage the largest number of negativeattributes (1.56 per respondent), followed byShanghai (1.55), Jakarta (1.46), Mumbai(1.32) and Bangkok (1.18). ANOVAs withTukey's post hoc tests were used to identifysignificant differences between the fivecountries with regard to the seven

dislikeability reasons (see Table 1). Style ofadvertisements was identified by a highproportion of respondents from Shanghai(43.9%), Jakarta (37.6%) and Hong Kong(32.6%) as their primary reason for dislikingthe ads. In contrast, respondents fromBangkok were more likely to dislike ads thatwere exaggerating (28.0%). Irresponsibleads were particularly disliked in Mumbai(20.0%); scary/indecent/violent ads weredisliked in Hong Kong (13.1%) significantlymore than in the other four cities.Scary/indecent/violent ads were only of minorconcem in Mumbai (1.3%), Shanghai (0.8%)and Jakarta (0.4%). Hard-sell was a problemin Mumbai (14.7%) and Shanghai (12.2%),but significantly less so in Jakarta (4.4%),Bangkok (2.0%) and Hong Kong (0.5%).

To address RQ 3, mentions of dislikedexecution techniques were analyzed acrossthe seven product categories (see Table 2).On average, mentions of dislikeabilityattributes were highest for durables (1.59),followed by personal care (1.54), addictives(1.47), clothing (1.42), services (1.38), drinks(1.31) and foods (1.22). ANOVAs withTukey's post hoc tests were used to identifysignificant differences between the sevenproduct categories with regard to the sevendislikeability reasons (see Table 2). Style wasidentified by a high proportion of respondentsto be a primary reason for disliking the ads inthe product categories of clothing (42.0%),personal care (41.0%) and durables (39.5%).Meaningless ads were particularly likely tocause an aversion among respondents foraddicfives (29.8%), durables (27.9%) andservices (27.4%). Irresponsible ads weredisliked especially for addictives (19.1%),scary/indecent/violent ads for services(18.9%), and hard-sell ads for drinks (16.7%).

78 Disliked Executional Techniques in Advertising: A Five-Country Comparison

Table 1

Reasons for Disliking tbe Commercials across Cities(net number of mentions)

Attributes Total HK SH JA BK MB

952 221 255 226 100 150 F-values (ANOVA))

Style

Meaningless

Character

Exaggerating

Irresponsible

Scary/Indecent/Violent

Hard-sell

320(33.6)

173(18.2)

103(10.8)

149(15.7)

101(10.6)

40(4.2)

66(6.9)

72"(32.6)

38"(17.2)

31"(14.0)

27"(12.2)

23""(10.4)

29"(13.1)

1"(0.5)

112"(43.9)

33"(12.9)

20""(7.8)

48""(18.8)

9"(3.5)

2"(0.8)

31"(12.2)

85"(37.6)

43"(19.0)

32"(14.2)

28"(12.4)

27""(11.9)

1"(0.4)

10"(4.4)

19"(19.0)

27"(27.0)

6"(6.0)

28"(28.0)

12"(12.0)

6"(6.0)

2"(2.0)

32"(21.3)

32"(21.3)

14""(9.3)

18"(12.0)

30"(20.0)

2"(1.3)

22"(14.7)

10.16**

1.01

3.46**

3.81**

592**

17.37**

11.63**

Sample size 660 142 164 155 85 114

Attributes per respondent 1.44 1.56 1.55 1.46 1.18 1.32

Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01; HK = Hong Kong, SH = Shanghai, JA = Jakarta, BK = Bangkok, MB = Mumbai.Percentages for each city may not total 100 percent because of rounding.°'*" Different alphabetical superscripts indicate significant differences between percentages in each row (p < 0.05).

O <^

es

uus-ao

¿o

• mm "^

i ̂i *tj fe

B ^

il

BO

M

z

o

BU

'£o

• g X¡ NO

g

ON CN CN

(N0000

**m

00

CN " -H

<N

« , cu

00 lO CN^ CN ^

g ON .g 00

<N (N CN CN

<N

00 " ^ -S

XI ON00 ^

ON^ O\ ^

CN —Ig

CN'

« ON

22 00 CN

^

CN

<^ » í=^CN

CNr<i 2*-" 2'-'

íngí

U

O

E2

Chí

.5

00

X

w

onsi

CO

Irre

c"o

§c

1o

sell

•P

Haï

o ;*CN _ ;

CN

ON

CN

ONOO

O

n.2i

3ZIS

"3.S

(U

n.en

.4—1

on

qdV

3

S

u00

• B00 cc u

••-• cj

§ t

odV

0.05

, **

V

«

te:

o

; bec

aus

s(U

2

pe:

oo

tota

l

oc

B

o00

u

t jT3

pro

for

each

u00

nta

30.

:nce

s be

ffe

•ac

ica

iign

if

u

3

indi

a.•Cu

lers

ULi

3

tical

: alp

habe

c2

OH «r

80 Disliked Executional Techniques in Advertising: A Five-Country Comparison

Effects of Ad Dislikeability onPurchase Intentions

For each advertisement recalled,mentions of disliked executional techniqueswere counted and the resulting values wereinserted into the data file. The ads wereassigned to one of the seven productcategories, constituting one product categoryvariable in the data file. A country variablewas included to reflect the Asian cities therespondents came from. One variableindicated whether the respondents had usedthe brand in the disliked ad before; anothervariable was used to indicate whether therespondents bought the respective brand lessoften, more often, or as often after viewingthe ad. This data file provided the startingpoint from which to explore RQs 4 to 6.

Individuals who had not bought thebrand in the disliked ad before wereeliminated from ftirther analysis. This wasnecessary because the research team was onlyinterested in the impact of disliked attributeson the probability of buying less: buying lessis obviously not an option if the brand has notbeen used before. Next, respondents who didnot mention a single dislikeability attributewere deleted from the database: if nodislikeability attribute was mentioned, theeffect of different disliked executiontechniques on behavior could not be tested.In a validity check it was confirmed thatpeople who did not mention a single dislikedattribute were more likely to buy the same ormore after seeing the ad (p < 0.05). Thiswinnowing procedure resulted in 449 eligiblepeople remaining in the database.

To simplify interpretation of theresults, the purchase categories were thencollapsed into buying the same/more and

buying less after seeing the advertisement.From a conceptual point of view, it wasexpected that disliked execution techniqueswould explain the shift from buying the sameto buying less, and not from buying more tobuying the same. Statistically, thisassumption was confirmed with a multinomiallogistic regression. All disliked executiontechniques, except for the irresponsiblecategory, were found to significantly affectpeople so that they bought less (comparedwith buying the same), while irresponsiblewas the only attribute that affectedrespondents' probability of buying the same(compared with buying more). Theobservation that perceptions ofirresponsibility does not shift people frombuying the same to buying less, but ratherfrom buying more to buying the same isinteresting and deserves ftirther examination.

In line with the research questions, theeffects of all seven disliked executiontechniques on purchase intention of theadvertised brand were assessed. For each ad,/, the probability of a respondent buying lessafter seeing the ad (as opposed to continuingto buy the same or buying more) wasestimated as a function of the sevendislikeability dimensions (style, meaningless,character, exaggerating, irresponsible,scary/indecent/violent, hard-sell). Note thatfor each attribute category a respondent mighthave zero, one, two or more mentions,depending on the number of stated reasonsand how they were coded. One general modelacross all countries and product categorieswas investigated first. In formal terms, abinary logistic regression was tested and alinear structure for the log odds specified:

logP(same),

^ß^+ß^.STYLE + /?2 .MEANING + ß^ • CHARACTER + ß, • EXAGG

ß, • IRRES + ß, • VIOLENT + /?, . HARDS

Volume 24, 2011

In a second step, variables for the five the effects among the five cities. To test theAsian cities were added to find out (1) city infiuence the general model was modifiedwhether the main effects of the execution and included dummy variables CDj for thetechniques were stable, and (2) whether there citiesy (/' = 1,..., 5):were significant differences in the strength of

log ^(^"y^^^^)' = /?„ + y9, . STYLE + ß^ • MEANING + ß, • CHARACTER + ß, • EXAGG +P(same),

£ß, • IRRES + ß, • VIOLENT + ß^ • HARDS + £

Similarly, effects of the seven product was modified and included dummy variablescategories were analyzed. To test the PD* for the product categories ^(Ä:= 1,..., 7):infiuence of product type the general model

log -^(^^y^^^^)' =ß^^ß^. STYLE + ß^ • MEANING + ß^ • CHARACTER + ß^ • EXAGG +/'(same),

K-\

ß, • IRRES + ß^ • VIOLENT + ß, • HARDS +

Finally, a model was estimated the seven product types. Formally, theincluding both city dummies CDj and product following model was estimated:category dummies PDk to test the stability ofthe findings across the five Asian cities and

log-^(^^y^^^^). =ß^+ß.STYLE + ß^ • MEANING + ß, • CHARACTER + ß, • EXAGG +P(same),

J-\ K-l

ß, • IRRES + ß^ • VIOLENT + ß, • HARDS + ^rj • CDj +

82 Disliked Executional Techniques in Advertising: A Eive-Country Comparison

Outcomes

Table 3 shows the effects of the sevendisliked execution techniques on purchaseintention (RQs 4, 5 and 6). The first twocolumns identify the independent variables,i.e., the seven dislikeability dimensions, thecity and the product category dummies. Thenext two columns indicate the results for thegeneral model (Eq. (1)). The other columnspresent the results for the general model withdummy variables for the different cities (Eq.(2)), product categories (Eq. (3)), and citiesand product categories (Eq. (4)).

The p-value for overall model fit issmaller than 0.001 for all models, indicating agood fit. Nagelkerke's R^ ranges from 0.105for the general model to 0.138 for the generalmodel with city and product type dummyvariables. Introducing dummy variablesincreases Nagelkerke's R .̂ Although not veryhigh, these values are reasonable, particularlyas purchase intention is influenced by manyother factors aside from disliked executiontechniques in advertisements.

The main effects of the seven dislikedexecution techniques are virtually identical inthe four models. For ftarther interpretation thestudy focused on the richest model with bothcity and product category dummies. Six ofthe seven disliked execution techniques havea significant impact on the probability ofbuying less of the advertised brand {style,meaningless, character, exaggerating.

scary/indecent/violent, hard-sell). The neg-ative signs indicate that respondents whomentioned more negative attributes in eachcategory were less likely to buy the advertisedproduct again. The city dummies are notsignificant, i.e., the effects of the sevendislikeability dimensions on purchaseintentions do not differ between the fiveAsian cities. The product type dummiesindicate that the effects of the executiontechniques are significantly different forservices compared with the baseline categorydurables (p < 0.05). Further analysis withservices as the reference category also showsa significant difference between servicescompared with clothing and accessories (p <0.05). Apart from these observations, theeffects of disliked execution techniques onpurchase intention are not significantlydifferent among product categories. Thenegative signs for the product categorydummies indicate that for durables andclothing, the negative effect of dislikedexecution techniques on purchase intentions isweakest, while for services it is strongest.

The results point to three importantconclusions: (1) disliked execution techniqueshave a significant negative impact onpurchase intention; (2) these findings do notvary across the five Asian cities; and (3) thesefindings do not vary much across productcategories, with a slightly stronger effect forservices, and a slightly weaker effect fordurables and clothing.

ions

O)

es

IOH

CO

O

•as

1

se

H

fîI*

1 S•̂ "i.2 i

»-5; 'S í

Is

Mod

•FH

00

m

Sig.

CQ

ffl

ob

CQ

»—H

OO

O H

p

O

p<0,

0 0asp

ooVOH

VO

asp

oÖVeu

ON

ooo

r—H

ooVOH

op

o

p<0,

o

oo

0 0ON

p

O

oVOH

ON

p

Mea

ning

l

WIJ)

oo

'^

(NON

p

OÖII11OH

0 00 0

p

oo

k

0 0

p

ook

vot—

p

Cha

ract

er

u

'dnE

ÎJ9>

oo

p

oÖ\/VOH

0 0ON

p

O

oVCu

ON

p

ooVOH

oON

p

bù_ö

xagg

erai

rrj y

3P

ON

OIIOH

l OO

(N

ÖIIMO H

CN

p

CN

O H

(N

p

fNO

k

OO

p

(D

3

Irre

spon

si

oo

k

ro1

O

ÖIIIIOH

Oro

O

O H

>nro

Oo

0 0

'Y

Ö

1uou

cary

/Ind

tZ)

ooVOH

p

oÖIIk

ONÖ

ooVeu

0 0

p

o

p=0.

ON

p

[ard

-sel

l

r

mroO

IL

Ö

vo

Cu

l O(NO

00

CiO

1QU

o

k

o

Ö

oIIOH

asvoÖ

1BO1

XA

QU

vo^ H

oIIOH

ONvoÖ

f N

OIIOH

Ö

Dja

kart

a

D

p=0.

roO

roOIIOH

( ^

O

ÎQU

o

a

0 0

pÖ

O H

ro0 0

-1.

Dse

rvic

es

eu

asro

O H

o

roOIIIIOH

t—

P

Dci

othi

ng

OH

lO§c

VO

O

0 0

1

oo

ÖIIk

asp

Dpe

rsC

are

OH

" - H

OIIOH

asro

OsOOIIIICu

1

DD

rink

s

PH

asfN

O H

0 0ON

roOIIIIOH

roON

DFo

ods

CL,

Os»—H

p=0.

vo

rofNOIIOH

O

'

L* A

ddic

tive:

CL,

1 fonpouj

O 00Ö ^V ÖOH

o -H

V ^

p r-o ^V r-i

V ÖCu

S t

2 =§

o00smmbo002raouoc:<2u

p¿— 1

3Q

bo00u'Suuoauuai

84 Disliked Executional Techniques in Advertising: A Five-Country Comparison

DISCUSSION AND MANAGERIALIMPLICATIONS

The results of this research suggestthat, within similar demographic groups (age,gender, income, and occupation), consumershave different reasons for disliking televisioncommercials. Of the five cities, respondentsfi-om Hong Kong and Shanghai were mostlikely to mention disliked executiontechniques, which are attributed to the level ofeconomic development. Respondents fromHong Kong and Shanghai live in a fast-paced,highly competitive business environment, sothey are more likely to experience and be ableto compare commercials from many differentcountries either through travels or access toglobal television networks. For the less-developed economies, like Bangkok andMumbai, where entertainment establishmentsare either out of reach or there are few ofthem, television commercials might becomean entertainment per se. This may explain thelow number of disliked ads as well asdislikeable execution techniques recorded forthe respondents from these two cities.

The differences in the composition ofad dislikeability among the five cities couldbe attributed to the different cultural valuesand religious backgrounds of the respondents.Overall, style is the dominant attribute thatdrives disliking certain televisioncommercials, which could be due to the'homogeneity' of the respondents in each city.Given that the majority of the respondents areprofessionals (white-collar workers), they areless likely to tolerate commercials that are oldfashioned, repetitive, boring or annoying. Inaddition, these professionals might have someexposure to Western media and commercialsin their daily work and as such they are morelikely to be able to distinguish an innovativeadvertisement from an old-fashioned ad or agood-taste ad from a bad taste ad. It wasfound that the Mumbai respondents dislikedcommercials that were irresponsibleparticularly those that tended to misleadyoungsters, as these commercials go againstthe conventional protocol of children obeying

their parents and/or children's proper placeand position in society. According to Abdi(2002), India is still a very conservativecountry and advertising in India must takeinto account local sensitivities. For instance,competitive individualism is severely fi"ownedupon in Indian society as it can disruptrelationships by hurting others' feelings(Roland 1988). The respondents in Bangkokon the other hand disliked meaningless andexaggerating commercials, particularly thosecontaining misleading information aboutproduct effectiveness. This may be due to theBuddhist teachings that it is not right to self-indulge, be materialistic or exploit others.

The analysis of ad dislikeability acrossproduct categories offers additionalexplanations for the differences in thecomposition of dislikeability. Style wasidentified as a primary reason for dislikingads in the product categories of clothing(42.0%), personal care (41.0%) and durables(39.5%). This again indicates that consumersdo not want to be connected with brands thatare perceived to be old-fashioned, boring orannoying. Meaningless ads promotingaddictives, durables and services wereparticularly likely to cause aversion amongthe respondents. This is likely to be becauseconsumers are generally more serious aboutmaking these purchase decisions (these arelikely to be more high-involvementpurchases), so they do not want irrelevantinformation or images in the ads.Exaggerating ads were disliked, especiallyads for foods, which may be becauseunrealistic puffery can cause a feeling that theads are not telling the truth about the product.Service products rely a great deal on theservice provider, so ads that werescary/indecent/violent were likely to causeconcern about the quality of the services.Finally, addictive products, such as alcoholand gambling, must be consumed responsiblyotherwise this can lead to problems likealcoholism or gambling addiction, soconsumers particularly disliked anyconnection between addictive products andirresponsible image.

Volume 24, 2011 85

An important issue is that a highernumber of negative mentions did not translatedirectly into negative effects on purchaseintentions, i.e., the effects of dislikedexecution techniques were not related to thenumber of mentions or to cultural differencesbetween the cities. This study finds thatdisliked executional techniques have asignificant negative impact on purchaseintention, meaning that when respondentsdisliked commercials, they either did not buythe product or bought it less often. It wasestablished that all of the disliked executionaltechniques, except for the irresponsiblecategory, significantly affected people so thatthey bought less (compared with buying thesame or more). With regard to productcategories, purchase intention for serviceswas negatively affected by dislikedtechniques. This could be because servicesare dependent on interaction and personalcontact with the service provider. Beinghighly variable and intangible, anadvertisement for a service would reflectphysical evidence of quality that could not beobserved or judged beforehand. For durablesand clothing, because their physical productfeatures are more relevant and directlyobservable, purchase intention is lessdependent on disliked execution techniques inadvertising.

For marketers in Asia, the results ofthis study are relevant in a number of ways.In Asia, preserving the traditional aestheticvalues (e.g., adults showing exemplarybehavior to children, educational ads, good-natured ads, etc.) is paramount and henceadvertisers and creative directors should beaware of Asian values. Culture and religionplay a significant role in shaping the behaviorof these consumers. Asia is a multi-faithgroup of societies imbued with varioustraditions and customs. Respondents' dislikeof some commercials may be due to theircultural upbringing as from a very young age,most Asian children are taught the 'right'approach to behave in public and in front ofadults.

Clearly not all Asian markets are thesame and this study indicates the executionaltechniques that are particularly disliked inspecific Asian countries and for specificproduct types. This could help companies tofocus on the 'right' messages for specificproducts in certain regions. Additionally, allseven ad dislikeability dimensions have thepotential to influence consumers' purchasedecisions in Asia. Hence, even though certainvalues are more salient in some cities, alldisliked execution techniques are relevant inall Asian markets. Understanding the sevendisliked execution techniques whendeveloping advertising campaigns for anyAsian market may help companies to avoidpotential minefields, like antagonising oroffending local cultural values, customs andtraditions, and religious beliefs.

CONCLUSION

This study has explored the addislikeability construct and its dimensions infive Asian cities and across seven productcategories. Its findings show that there aremajor differences in the composition of addislikeability, and that disliked executiontechniques have similar effects on purchaseintentions. Seven dislikeable televisioncommercial attributes were identified, namely:bad style of the ad, meaningless storyline,ugly or stupid characters, exaggeratingproduct effectiveness, irresponsible ormisleading content, scary or violentcharacters or settings, and hard-sellapproaches. Six disliked attributes (style,meaningless, character, exaggerating,scary/indecent/violent, hard-sell) were foundto make people buy less (compared withbuying the same or more), while for oneexecution technique (irresponsible)respondents indicated that they were buyingthe same amount of the advertised brandinstead of buying more after seeing thedisliked ad.

Since Asia is both a potentialminefield, with many values and religious

86 Disliked Executional Techniques in Advertising: A Five-Country Comparison

beliefs, and a honey pot, as it is largely anuntapped market, this research is important inthat it provides international marketers withthe capability to determine what potentialcustomers dislike in their TV advertisements,and the factors that could potentially turncustomers off the product or brand and makethe advertising message totally ineffective.

Of course, this study does havelimitations. Its focus only on the Asianmarket and perceptions of dislikeability maydiffer in other cultures. Further researchcould address this issue by examining thedimensions of ad dislikeability in other areasof the world, such as in Western or Arabcountries. Another limitation stems fi-om theuse of advertisement recall and verbaldescriptions from consumers. As the trueamount of disliked execution techniques isunknown, it is not certain whether participantsfrom the five cities differed with regard totheir perceptions of the ads or whether the adswere actually different, i.e., containeddifferent execution techniques. This does notaffect the infiuence of the dislikeabilitydimensions on purchase intentions, but itrelates to the descriptive dislikeabilitymentions in each attribute category. A similarissue arises with the dislikeability mentions inthe seven product categories. It is not knownfor sure whether in specific product categories,specific techniques were really more dislikedor whether they were actually used more inthese ads and, therefore, mentioned moreoften. Future research should validate thisstudy's findings by taking into account theactual content of ads in the respective citiesand product categories.

Future research could also build onthis study's findings and develop a scale tomeasure ad dislikeability based on the sevendislikeability dimensions identified. Such anattempt would increase understanding of thedifferent facets of ad dislikeability and help toexamine the position of the ad dislikeabilityconstruct in a nomological network ofconsumer responses to advertising. Thiswould provide researchers and advertiserswith an instrument that could be used to

assess ad dislikeability, its dimensions andconsequences in a structured way acrosscountries and product categories.

REFERENCES

Aaker, David A. and Donald Norris (1982),"Characteristics of TV CommercialsPerceived as Informative," Journal ofAdvertising Research, 22 (2), 61-70.

Aaker, David A. and Douglas M. Stayman (1990),"Measuring Audience Perceptions ofCommercials and Relating Them to AdImpact," Journal of Advertising Research, 30(4), 7-17.

Abdi, S. N. (2002), "Copywriters at a Loss forWords for Birth Control Ad," South ChinaMorning Post, Monday, Sept. 2, 12.

Albers-Miller, Nancy D. and Maria R. Stafford(1999), "An International Analysis ofEmotional and Rational Appeals in Servicesvs. Goods Advertising," Journal of ConsumerMarketing, 16 (1), 42-57.

Alwitt, Linda F. and Paul R. Prabhaker (1992),"Functional and Belief Dimensions ofAttitudes to Television Advertising:Implications for Copytesting," Journal ofAdvertising Research, 32 (5), 30-42.

Alwitt, Linda F. and Paul R. Prabhaker (1994),"Identifying Who Dislikes TelevisionAdvertising: Not by Demo," Journal ofAdvertising Research, 34 (6), 17-28.

Andrews, J. Craig (1989), "The Dimensionality ofBeliefs toward Advertising in General,"Journal of Advertising, 18 (1), 26-35.

Bartos, Rena (1981), "Ideas for Action-Ads ThatIrritate May Erode Trust in AdvertisedBrands," Harvard Business Review, 59 (4),138-139.

Bartos, Rena and Theodore F. Dunn (1974),Advertising and Consumers: NewPerspectives. New York: AmericanAssociation of Advertising Agencies.

Bauer, Raymond A. and Stephen Greyser (1968),Advertising in America: The Consumer View.Boston: Harvard University Press.

Bednall, S. and Kanuk, W. (1997), ConsumerBehaviour. Sydney: Prentice-Hall, Australia.

Biel, Alexander L. and Carol A. Bridgewater(1990), "Attributes of Likable TelevisionCommercials," Journal of AdvertisingResearch, 30 (3), 38-44.

Volume 24, 2011 87Bush, Alan J., Rachel Smith, and Craig Martin

(1999), "The Influence of ConsumerSocialisation Variables on Attitude towardAdvertising: A Comparison of African-Americans and Caucasians," Journal ofAdvertising, 28 (3), 13-26.

Cheng, Hong and John C. Schweitzer (1996),"Cultural Values Reflected in Chinese andU.S. Television Commercials," Journal ofAdvertising Research, 36 (3), 27-45.

Cho, Chang-Hoan and Hongsik John Cheon.(2004), "Why do People avoid Advertising onthe Intemet?" Journal of Advertising, 33 (4),89-97.

CIA World Fact Book (2011), "Guides to CountryProfiles," available at:https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html (accessedMay 22, 2011).

Collett, Peter (1994), "Youth: How Do TheyView Your Commercials?" TranscriptProceedings of the 5th ARF Youth ResearchWorkshop. New York: Advertising ResearchFoundation.

De Mooij, Marieke (1998), Global Marketing andAdvertising - Understanding CulturalParadoxes. London: Sage Publications.

Du Plessis, Eric C. (1994), "Understanding andUsing Likeability," Journal of AdvertisingResearch, 34(5), 3-10.

Fam, Kim-Shyan (2008), "Attributes of LikeableTelevision Commercials in Asia," Journal ofAdvertising Research, 48 (3), 418-32.

Fam, Kim-Shyan and Reinhard Grohs (2007),"Cultural Values and Effective ExecutionalTechniques in Advertising - A Cross-Countryand Product Category Study of Urban YoungAdults in Asia," International Marketingi?ev/ew, 24(5), 519-538.

Fam, Kim-Shyan and David S. Waller (2006),"Identifying Likeable Attributes: AQualitative Study of Television Ads in Asia,"Qualitative Market Research: AnInternational Journal, 9 (1), 38-50.

Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief Attitude,Intention and Behavior: An Introduction toTheory and Research. Reading Mass;Addison Wesley.

Ford, Gary T., Darlene B. Smith, and John L.Swasy (1990), "Consumer Scepticism ofAdvertising Claims: Testing Hypotheses fromEconomics of Information," Journal ofConsumer Research, 16 (4), 433-441.

Franzen, Giep (1994), Advertising Effectiveness:Findings from Empirical Research. Henley-on-Thames: NTC Publications Limited.

Gregory, Gary D. and James M. Munch (1997),"Cultural Values in Intemational Advertising:An Examination of Familial Norms and Rolesin Mexico," Psychology & Marketing, 14 (2),99-119.

Hall, Edward T. (1976), Beyond Culture. GardenCity, NY: Anchor Books.

Haley, Russell I. and Allan L. Baldinger (1991),"The ARF Copy Research Validity Project,"Journal of Advertising Research, 31 (2), 11-32.

Han, Sang-Pil and Sharon Shavitt (1994),"Persuasion and Culture: Advertising Appealsin Individualistic and Collectivistic Societies,"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,30 (4), 326-350.

Hofstede, Geert (1980), Culture's Consequences:International Differences in Work-RelatedValues. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Hofstede, Geert (1991), Cultures andOrganizations. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hollis, Nigel S. (1995), "Like It or Not, Liking IsNot Enough," Journal of AdvertisingResearch, 35 (4), 7-16.

Hong, Jae W., Aydin Muderrisoglu, and GeorgeM. Zinkhan (1987), "Cultural Differences andAdvertising Expression: A ComparativeContent Analysis of Japanese and U.S.Magazine Advertising," Journal ofAdvertising, 16 (1), 55-68.

James, William L. and Arthur J. Kover (1992),"Observations: Do Overall Attitudes towardAdvertising Affect Involvement with SpecificAdvertisements?" Journal of AdvertisingResearch, 32 (5), 78-83.

Johar, J.S. and M. Joseph Sirgy (1991), "Value-Expressive versus Utilitarian AdvertisingAppeals: When and Why to Use WhichAppeal," Journal of Advertising, 20 (3), 23-33.

Jones, John P. (2000), International Advertising:Realities and Myths. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications.

Jozsa, Laszlo, Andrea Insch, Jayne Krisjanous,Kim-Shyan Fam, (2010), "Beliefs aboutAdvertising in China: Empirical Evidencefrom Hong Kong and Shanghai Consumers,"Journal of Consumer Marketing, 27 (7), 594—603.

Disliked Executional Techniques in Advertising: A Five-Country Comparison

Kassarjian, Harold H. (1977), "Content Analysisin Consumer Research," Journal of ConsumerResearch, 4 (I), S-IS.

Keane, Lara and Kim-Shyan Fam (2005), "Media:Through the Eyes of Young Adults," Journalof Promotion Management, 11 (2/3), 155-174.

Kennedy, Rachel and Byron Sharp (1998), "DoPeople Pay More Attention to Likeable Ads?(A Preliminary Examination of Whether AdLikeability Works via Attitude or Attention.)"Proceedings of the Australia and NewZealand Marketing Academy Conference,University of Otago.

Larkin, Emest F. (1977), "A Factor Analysis ofCollege Student Attitudes toward Advertising,"Journal of Advertising, 6 (2), 42-46.

Laskey, Henry A., Richard J. Fox, and Melvin R.Crask (1994), "Investigating the Impact ofExecutional Style on Television CommercialEffectiveness," Journal of AdvertisingResearch, 34 (6), 9-16.

Lepkowska-White, Elzbieta, Thomas G. Brashear,and Marc G. Weinberger (2003), "A Test ofAd Appeal Effectiveness in Poland and theUnited States: The Interplay of Appeal,Product, and Culture," Journal of Advertising,32 (3), 57-67.

Livingstone, Sonia (2002), Young People andNew Media: Childhood and the ChangingMedia Environment. London: Sage.

Lowe Advertising HK Ltd. (2005), IntemalReport on 'Incomes in Asia'.

Lynn, Richard (1991), The Secret of the MiracleEconomy: Different National Attitudes toCompetitiveness and Money. London: SocialAffairs Unit.

MacKenzie, Scott B. and Richard J. Lutz (1989),"An Empirical Examination of the StmcturalAntecedents of Attitude toward the Ad in anAdvertising Pretesting Context," Journal ofMarketing, 53 (2), 48-65.

MacKenzie, Scott B., Richard J. Lutz and GeorgeE. Belch (1986), "The Role of Attitude towardthe Ad as a Mediator of AdvertisingEffectiveness: A Test of CompetingExplanations," Journal of MarketingResearch, 23 (2), 130-143.

Madden, Charles S., Marjorie J. Caballero, andShinya Matsukubo (1986), "Analysis ofInformation Content in US and JapaneseMagazine Advertising," Journal ofAdvertising, 15 (3), 38-45.

Muehling, Darrel D. (1987), "An Investigation ofFactors Underlying Attitude-toward-Advertising-in-General," Journal ofAdvertising, 16(1), 32-40.

Nielsen Media (2005), "Media Spending in Asia,"available atwww.nielsenmedia.com.au/Asia/Media/pdf (accessed March 15, 2011).

Oxford English Dictionarv (2005), 3rd Edition.Oxford University Press.

Pollay, Richard W. and Banwari Mittal (1993),"Here's the Beef: Factors, Determinants,and Segments in Consumer Criticism ofAdvertising," Journal of Marketing, 57 (3),99-114.

Postman, Neil (1986), Amusing Ourselves toDeath: Public Discourse in the Age of ShowBusiness. New York: Penguin.

Ratchford, Brian T. (1987), "New Insights aboutthe FCB Grid," Journal of AdvertisingResearch, 27 (4), 24-38.

Reeves, Byron and Clifford Nass (1996), TheMedia Equation: How People TreatComputers, Television, and New Media LikeReal People and Places. Cambridge:University Press Cambridge.

Rehman, Sharaf N. and John R. Brooks, Jr. (1987),"Attitudes toward Television Advertisementsfor Controversial Products," Journal ofHealthcare Marketing, 1 (3), 78-83.

Rice, Marshall D. and Zaiming Lu (1988), "AContent Analysis of Chinese MagazineAdvertisements," Journal of Advertising, 17(4), 43-48.

Rickard, L. (1994), "Consumers Would RatherSkip Feminine Hygiene Ads," Advertising^ge, 65 (11), March 14, 29.

Roland, Alan (1988), In Search of Self in Indiaand Japan: Toward a Cross-CulturalPsychology. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.

Samovar, Larry A., Richard E. Porter, and EdwinR. McDaniel (2007), Communication betweenCultures. 6th edition, Belmont, CA: ThomsonWadsworth Press.

Schiffman Leon, David Bednall, JudithWatson, and Leslie Kanuk (1997),Consumer Behaviour. Sydney: Prentice-Hall.

Sirgy, M. Joseph and J.S. Johar (1992), "ValueExpressive versus Utilitarian Appeals: AReply to Shavitt," Journal of Advertising, 21(2), 53-54.

Volume 24, 2011 89Smit, Edith G., Lex van Meurs, and Peter C.

Neijens (2006), "Effects of AdvertisingLikeability: A 10-Year Perspective," Journalof Advertising Research, 46 (1), 73-83.

Tai, Susan H.C. (1997), "Advertising in Asia:Localize or Regionalize?" InternationalJournal of Advertising, 16 (1), 48-61.

Taylor, Charles R., Gordon E. Miracle, and R.Dale Wilson (1997), "The Impact ofInformation Level on the Effectiveness of U.S.and Korean Television Commercials,"Journal of Advertising, 20 (4), 1-15.

Triandis, Harry C. (1989), "Cross-Cultural Studiesof Individualism and Collectivism," in Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Ed. John J. Berman.Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Walker, David and Tony M. Dubitsky (1994),"Why Liking Matters," Journal of AdvertisingResearch, 34 (3), 9-\9.

Weinberger, Marc G. and Harlan E. Spotts (1989),"Humour in US versus UK TV Commercials:A Comparison," Journal of Advertising, 18(2), 39-44.

World Bank (2007), "Doing Business 2007,"available at: www.worldbank.org/countries(accessed June 23, 2011).

Zandpour, Fred, Cypress Chang, and JoëlleCatalano (1992), "Stories, Symbols, andStraight Talk: A Comparative Analysis ofFrench, Taiwanese and US TV Commercials,"Journal of Advertising Research, 32 (1), 25-38.

Zanot, E. (1981), "Public Attitude towardAdvertising," In Advertising in a New Age.Ed. H. Keith Hunt. Provo, UT: Proceedings.American Academy of Advertising.

Send correspondence regarding this article to:

Kim-Shyan FamSchool of Marketing and International BusinessVictoria University of WellingtonPO Box 600, WellingtonNew ZealandEmail: kim.fam(5),vuw.ac.nz

Copyright of Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction & Complaining Behavior is the property of

CS/D&CB Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the

copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for

individual use.