1997
DOI: 10.1177/002224299706100401
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparative versus Noncomparative Advertising: A Meta-Analysis

Abstract: Previous research and reviews on comparative advertising report mixed results. The authors report the results from a meta-analysis that examines the efficacy of comparative advertising. The analysis shows that comparative ads are more effective than noncomparative ads in generating attention, message and brand awareness, levels of message processing, favorable sponsored brand attitudes, and increased purchase intentions and purchase behaviors. However, comparative ads evoke lower source believability and a les… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
98
1
1

Year Published

1999
1999
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 128 publications
(106 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
6
98
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…One of the most direct inter-brand relations is an explicit comparison, for example in the form of comparative advertising. In a meta-analysis, it was shown that comparative ads have a variety of benefits for brands although they reduce source credibility (Grewal, Kavanoor, Fern, Costley, & Barnes, 1997).…”
Section: Inter-brand Relationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One of the most direct inter-brand relations is an explicit comparison, for example in the form of comparative advertising. In a meta-analysis, it was shown that comparative ads have a variety of benefits for brands although they reduce source credibility (Grewal, Kavanoor, Fern, Costley, & Barnes, 1997).…”
Section: Inter-brand Relationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A typical comparative claim highlights the superior benefits of a company's product offerings relative to competitors' or some benchmarks (Grewal, Kavanoor, Fern, Costley, & Barnes, 1997;Pechmann & Stewart, 1990). Previous research suggests that direct comparisons identifying the referents can induce stronger consumer attention to promoted product attributes and increase message persuasiveness (Jain, 1993;Pechmann & Ratneshwar, 1991).…”
Section: Baseline Omissionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, research on comparative advertising indicates that, rather than admiring a brand that takes on another, consumers may actually perceive a brand-to-brand juxtaposition as being unsportsmanlike conduct, and as such, may derogate the source (Belch, 1981;Grewal, Kavanoor, Fern, Costley, & Barnes, 1997). In the context of parodic ads, this may imply that although a consumer may appreciate the humor generated by the parody's disparagement, s/he may also, at least sometimes, view the parodic ad's sponsor as leading an unprovoked and mean-spirited attack on the parodied party.…”
Section: Mockerymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, even if the truths arising from a parodic ad are valued, the confrontational stance taken by the parodic ad's sponsor in producing those truths may perturb consumers. As with comparative advertising (Belch, 1981;Grewal et al, 1997), source derogation may ensue, offsetting any positive effects of perceived truth value on attitudes toward the parodic ad's sponsor.…”
Section: Perceived Truthmentioning
confidence: 99%