Worked example 1
A smartphone ad with detailed specification comparisons increases purchase intent among tech enthusiasts but not casual viewers. The same brand's billboard using only a celebrity and slogan increases brand liking after repeated exposure. Many viewers skip the TV version using ad-blockers. Using models of ad processing, explain these findings and evaluate the campaigns.
Show solution outline
Spec comparison — ELM central route: Tech enthusiasts = high involvement + ability to process → engage with argument quality (specs) → enduring attitude change and purchase intent (Petty & Cacioppo).
Casual viewers — no effect from specs: Low involvement → peripheral route only — detailed specs ignored (exceed motivation/ability threshold).
Billboard — peripheral route + mere exposure: Celebrity + slogan = peripheral cues (attractiveness, fame). Repeated exposure → mere exposure effect (Zajonc) — increased familiarity and liking without deep processing.
Ad-blocker skipping — ad avoidance: Active resistance reduces effective reach — tech-savvy audience least exposed to TV spec ad despite being highest involvement.
Evaluate — campaign fit: Dual strategy is appropriate — central route for target segment; peripheral + repetition for mass awareness (2.5.3).
Evaluate — limitations: Peripheral change is fragile — easily reversed by competitor ads. Mere exposure has ceiling — over-exposure causes irritation. Ad avoidance growing — digital natives hardest to reach via traditional TV. Ethics — peripheral route exploits low-involvement processing without informed evaluation.