Worked example 1
A car brand runs an emotional TV advert showing a family road trip (ATL). It also sends personalised emails with test-drive offers to website visitors (BTL). A celebrity athlete appears in both. A public health campaign uses fear appeals showing accident statistics, paired with safety feature information. Compare the techniques and evaluate their likely effectiveness.
Show solution outline
TV family road trip — ATL + emotional appeal: Mass reach builds brand awareness (2.5.3) and positive affect — associates car with family bonding, not specifications. High-involvement product (2.3.1) — emotion creates favourable attitude before rational comparison.
Personalised email — BTL: Targeted to interested visitors — higher conversion rate, measurable ROI. Test-drive offer = behavioural call to action.
Celebrity athlete — endorsement + peripheral route: Transfers success, performance, attractiveness to brand. Processed via peripheral route (2.5.2 ELM) — cue-based, not argument-based.
Fear appeal — public health: Statistics create anxiety → effective only if safety features offer clear solution and audience feels efficacy (protection motivation theory). Without solution → denial/defensive avoidance.
Evaluate — ATL vs BTL: ATL builds long-term recognition but hard to measure; BTL drives immediate action but limited reach. Combined = integrated campaign.
Evaluate — limitations: Emotional ads — wear-out effect with repetition. Celebrity — negative publicity risk. Fear appeals — ethical concerns if causing distress without actionable advice. Digital targeting — privacy concerns.