Determinants of Advertising Effectiveness: The Development of an International Advertising Elasticity Database and a Meta-Analysis

Increasing demand for marketing accountability requires an efficient allocation of marketing expenditures. Managers who know the elasticity of their marketing instruments can allocate their budgets optimally. Meta-analyses offer a basis for deriving benchmark elasticities for advertising. Although they provide a variety of valuable insights, a major shortcoming of prior meta-analyses is that they report only generalized results as the disaggregated raw data are not made available. This problem is highly relevant because coding of empirical studies, at least to a certain extent, involves subjective judgment. For this reason, meta-studies would be more valuable if researchers and practitioners had access to disaggregated data allowing them to conduct further analyses of individual, e.g., product-level-specific, interests. We are the first to address this gap by providing (1) an advertising elasticity database (AED) and (2) empirical generalizations about advertising elasticities and their determinants. Our findings indicate that the average current-period advertising elasticity is 0.09, which is substantially smaller than the value 0f 0.12 that was recently reported by Sethuraman, Tellis, and Briesch (2011). Furthermore, our meta-analysis reveals a wide range of significant determinants of advertising elasticity. For example, we find that advertising elasticities are higher (i) for hedonic and experience goods than for other goods; (ii) for new than for established goods; (iii) when advertising is measured in gross rating points (GRP) instead of absolute terms; and (iv) when the lagged dependent or lagged advertising variable is omitted.

Faking or Convincing: Why Do Some Advertising Campaigns Win Creativity Awards?

Since the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was passed in 2002, it has become commonplace in the advertising industry to use creativity-award-show prizes instead of gross income figures to attract new customers. Therefore, achieving a top creativity ranking and winning creativity awards have become high priorities in the advertising industry. Agencies and marketers have always wondered what elements in the advertising creation process would lead to the winning of creativity awards. Although this debate has been dominated by pure speculation about the success of different routines, approaches and strategies in winning creativity awards, for the first time our study delivers an empirical insight into the key drivers of creativity award success. We investigate what strategies and which elements of an advertising campaign are truly likely to lead to winning the maximum number of creativity awards. Using a sample of 108 campaigns, we identify factors that influence campaign success at international advertising award shows. We identify innovativeness and the integration of multiple channels as the key drivers of creativity award success. In contrast to industry beliefs, meaningful or personally connecting approaches do not seem to generate a significant benefit in terms of winning creativity awards. Finally, our data suggest that the use of so-called “fake campaigns” to win more creativity awards does not prove to be effective.