<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Our study is a preliminary investigation of multiple-source friendly-contention ads in which various endorsers argue about the brand's main benefit(s).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>The results demonstrate that such an ad convinced viewers that originally seemingly inconsistent attributes and benefits could both be found in the advertised brand.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Further, the tested advertising format produced more favorable brand attitudes than did an equivalently informative single-source ad version.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>The argumentative ad appears entirely appropriate in industries where a company wishes to target heavy product users.</span></span></p>

<span>Advertisers frequently incorporate music backgrounds in television commercials as a means of improving ad effectiveness. This paper examines the relationship of alternative music backgrounds on brand attitude formation. Brand attitudes were more favorable when emotive cues deviated from neutral presentations in circumstances of high involvement and when emotive cues were positive in situations of low involvement. Implications for advertising practice as well as suggestions for future research are discussed.</span>

No abstract

Previous academic studies have generally found comparative advertising to be equivalently or less effective in altering brand attitudes than more traditionaz forms, a resuZt which is at odds with its prevalent industry usage. The current study tested whether failure to measure attitudes toward both. the ad-sponsoring and comparison brands could account for the discrepancy. When effects on both brands were measured foZZowing use of a differentiation advertising strategy (originally equally preferred brands), a comparative ad format was found to be the more effective. The results were due primarily to attitudinal declines for the comparison brand, rather than gains by the ad sponsor. Dijferencesfrom previous studies are discussed.

No abstract