How Publicity and Advertising Spending Affect ...

How Publicity and Advertising Spending Affect Marketing and Company Performance Print Media Publicity about Durable-Goods/Services Brands Has a Stronger Impact than Advertising HARLAN E. SPOTTS

Western New England University

This research investigated the relative effects of marketing communications on a chain of “ marketing-productivity” measures-metrics that evaluate the influence of marketing

Springfield, MA

at the consumer, market, financial, and company levels. Results of the study, which

[email protected]

combined five industry data sets, revealed that publicity—specifically, via newspaper and

MARC G. WEINBERGER

magazine articles-and advertising spending have unique and different relative effects

University of

on the so-called marketing-productivity chain. On average, publicity had a stronger

Massachusetts/ Amherst University of Georgia/ Athens [email protected]. edu MICHELLE F. WEINBERGER

Northwestern University Evanston, IL m-weinberger@ northwestern.edu

relative importance compared with advertising for several indicators, although the effects for any individual company can vary. These findings have implications for the marketing-communications environment, which increasingly is saturated with publicity from a variety of sources.

INTRODUCTION

Practitioners and marketing scholars long have sought to understand the relative value of marketing-communications activities on consumer, market, financial, and firm-level outcomes. There is evidence that using an integrated marketingcommunications (IMC)-oriented, customer-centric approach may have a positive effect on custom ers, the brand, and sales (Reid, 2005). The relative

•

effects, however, of the most prominent customer facing IMC outputs—advertising and public rela tions—on these metrics still are unclear (Ots and Nyilasy, 2015). The objective of the current study was to under stand and evaluate the distinct influences of print-publicity and corporate-advertising spend ing on the chain of marketing-productivity met rics—important measures of a company's success

Publicity-via newspapers and magazine articles-and advertising spending are synergistic, although publicity has a stronger relative importance compared with advertising on some measures of company performance.

•

Positive publicity has a significant overall effect, whereas negative publicity has a detrimental effect on most firm performance metrics.

•

Corporate-brand attitude has a strong influence on sales, profitability, and firm value.

•

The significant role of positive and negative publicity in shaping corporate-brand attitude for stakeholders gives added importance to managing the flow of positive publicity and minimizing negative publicity, not only to protect the corporate brand but also because of its influence on sales, profitability, and firm value.

416 JOURUflL O f flDUERTISinG RESERRCH

December 2015

DOI: 10.2501/JAR-2015-023

HOW PUBLICITY AND ADVERTISING SPENDING AFFECT MARKETING AND COMPANY PERFORMANCE

THEARF.ORG

at the consum er, m arket, financial, and

This research assem bled five in dustry

By m odeling this chain of effects, the

com pany levels (A m bler et al., 2002;

data sets to answ er this question and

authors of this article attem pt to dem

H anssens and D ekim pe, 2012; Luo and

examined num erous individual relation

onstrate the relative im portance of each

D onthu, 2006; Rust, Ambler, C arpenter,

ships along the m arketing-productivity

variable. They also examined the indirect

Kumar, and Srivastav, 2004). Moreover,

chain.

effects of advertising and publicity on each

The analysis first examined the effects of

although m any IMC studies have focused on consumer packaged goods because of

publicity and advertising on

ductivity, in essence tying these marketing

the availability of point-of-sale data, the authors of the current article believe that

metric along the chain of marketing pro communication activities to a broad range

• stakeholder attitudes about the corpo

knowledge about durable goods and ser

of corporate success metrics.

rate brand,

vices firms is lacking (Sethuraman, Tellis,

• sales, and

and Briesch, 2011).

• corporate reputation.

A M a r k e tin g -C o m m u n ic a tio n s P ro d u c tiv ity M o d e l

At the broadest level, the authors pro

The current investigation focused on the

posed the following research question,

In turn, the authors then studied the effects

influence of publicity and advertising

specifically for a set of durable-technology

of

spending on m arket and com pany per formance, building on the productivity

goods and services companies: • stakeholder brand attitudes on sales and RQ1:

chain as dem onstrated in prior research

W hat is the relative influence

corporate reputation,

(Rust et al., 2004). The productivity-chain

of positive and negative p u b

• sales on profitability,

concept delineates the effects of direct

licity and advertising sp en d

• profitability on corporate reputation,

marketing expenditures on consumer atti

ing on m easures of success for the corporate bran d along the marketing-productivity chain?

M a r k e t A c tio n s

tudes, marketplace outcomes such as sales,

and • profitability and corporate reputation on the firm value (See Figure 1).

C u s to m e r M e tric s

M a r k e t M e tric s

and financial perform ance. That body of work is part of a tradition of research

F in a n c ia l M e tr ic s

F irm Value

Figure 1 Marketing-Productivity Chain December 2 0 15

JOURflfiL Of ADUERTISIRGRESEARCH 417


(Chaudhuri, 2002; Hanssens and Dekimpe, 2012; Joshi and Hanssens, 2010; Keller and Lehmann, 2003, 2006) that examines the multiple effects of marketing actions on marketing productivity. The current study modified the earlier models by adding the variables of positive and negative publicity as well as advertis ing spending to test the specific effects of these communication inputs along the chain of marketing productivity. The authors included intermediate metrics, such as

through purposeful public-relations activ ity. More often than not, it is composed

to examine the role of marketing com munications on the value of the corporate brand.

of a wider range of positive and negative elements, each affecting organizational stakeholders and often beyond the ability of the organization to control. It can play a pivotal role in the reputation and brand ing process, a view with conceptual (Gray and Balmer, 1998) and empirical (Chaud huri, 2002; Fombrun and Rindova, 1998) support. Publicity influences stakeholder perceptions of the company as a legitimate entity and also helps readers develop deeper knowledge and evaluations about the firm that shape its long term reputation (Deephouse and Carter, 2005). Publicity can be problematic, as negative publicity about people, products, and com panies abounds in the media and influ ences attitudes about

LITERATURE REVIEW

• political candidates (Golan and Wanta,

• corporate-brand attitude, • sales and profitability, and • corporate reputation

The two m arketing-com m unications mechanisms in the current model—adver tising spending and publicity—differ in important ways. Traditional advertising is under corpo rate control, always positive, focused on customers, and well established as a core brand-building tool (Keller and Lehman, 2006; Madden, Fehle, and Fournier, 2006). Advertising influences the creation of com pany value (Conchar, Crask, and Zinkhan, 2005; Vakratsas and Ambler, 1999) through intermediate effects such as changes in consumer beliefs and attitudes and behav ioral effects such as purchase and brand choice (Vakratsas and Ambler, 1999). Numerous studies have examined the short- and long-term effects of advertis ing and promotion most often articulated in a B2C context {e.g., Ailawadi, Lehmann, and Neslin, 2001; Anderson and Simester, 2004; Dekimpe and Hanssens, 1995; Mela, Gupta, and Lehmann, 1997). Publicity, meanwhile, is a communica tions element that is only partially realized

418 JOURflHL OF RDUERTISIRG RESEARCH

More recent research, however, has iden tified that negativity effects might be more complex as consumers react in various ways when they face negative information. Some place less value on important nega tive information and continue to pursue behavior hazardous to their health, such as smoking or unprotected sex. Therefore, a range of factors may influence negativity effects, including • • • • • •

credibility of the information channel; culpability of the responsible company; severity of the problem; source of the story; probability that the problem will occur; veracity of the negative claim (Romeo, Weinberger, and Antes, 1996); • commitment of customers to the issue (Ahluwalia, Burnkrant, and Unnava, 2001); and • loyalty to the brand (Weinberger, 1986).

2001 ),

• products (Weinberger, Allen, and Dillon, 1981), • sales (Weinberger and Romeo, 1989), and • universities (Kim, Carvalho, and Cook sey, 2007). Psychological research has documented a negativity dominance effect, possibly due to rarity and salience enhancing accessibil ity (Berlyne, 1964; Fiske, 1980) or enhanced usefulness (Feldman and Lynch, 1988). A litany of brands (e.g., Audi 5000, BP, 100-year-old Bon Vivant soup, Diet Pepsi, Nestle, Perrier, Procter & Gamble, etc.) have been adversely and disproportion ately affected by negative news over the past four decades. The marketing and consumer behavior literature shows that negative information can be extremely powerful (Mizerski, 1982), with negative word of mouth having as much as twice the influence of positive word of mouth on customers (Arndt, 1967).

December 2015

Counter to prior studies, other research concluded that positive WOM information actually had a stronger effect than negative WOM information on consumers' prior purchase intent (East, Hammond, and Lomax, 2008). As a result, the disproportional influence of negative over positive news on consumers is not universal. The individual and relative effects of positive and negative publicity and adver tising spending on market and firm metrics still are unclear. As Ranee Crain, editor-inchief of Advertising Age, once argued, "The landscape of marketing is changing more quickly and dramatically than I ever could have imagined, and its new realities will require public relations to shoulder more of the load."1

1 "Marketers Look at New Ideas, and PR Becomes the 'Closer.'" Advertising Age, July 2002. Retrieved from http://0-eds.b.ebscohost.com.wildpac.zune.edu/ehost/detail/ detail? sid=lac6270b-05bc-4bfZ-807e-94051bd0d31f%40ses sionmgrl98&vid=65&hid=119&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc 3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=7044085&db=buh.


Market Actions

Customer Metrics

Market Metrics

Financial Metrics

THEARF.ORG

Firm Value

Figure 2 Hypothesized Marketing-Communications Effects on Marketing-Productivity Chain Even before the dominance of the Inter net, scholars observed that the role of advertising in corporate branding might be diminishing with role of public rela tions on the rise (Kitchen, 1996). In many instances, however, reseach on publicity coverage has referred only to discussions of a company in traditional news outlets. In the current brand ecosystem, how ever, blogs, Twitter, Facebook, customer reviews, and num erous other digitalmedia sources also drive brand percep tion through another kind of publicity. Some research has found publicity effects superior to those of advertising. Indeed, some have argued that public relations are the most powerful marketingservices discipline (Ries and Ries, 2002). Advertising effectiveness can be enhanced if it is supported by publicity (Loda and Coleman, 2005). In a cross-study meta analysis, public relations was found to

be more effective than advertising, par ticularly in new product contexts and for existing products garnering net positive publicity (Eisend and Kuster, 2011). Yet this meta-analysis also reported that evidence on the relative effects had been largely con fined to laboratory studies, mostly at Level 1 in the current model (See Figure 2). To build on past research and clarify the relative influence of publicity and adver tising spending, the authors asked the fol lowing questions: • Does publicity's superiority persist beyond customer attitudes to influence metrics at the market and firm levels? • What is the relative influence of negative and positive press in this mix? If the prevailing wisdom about publicity and advertising is correct, then it would be expected that positive and negative

publicity would have stronger effects than those of advertising. Although the authors of the current article expect that advertising spending has a weaker effect than positive and negative publicity, such differences should be directly and positively related to • corporate-brand attitudes (Chaudhuri, 2002; Cobb-Walgren, Ruble, and Donthu, 1995), • sales (Batra, Meyers, and Aaker, 1996; Butters, 1976; Spotts, Weinberger, and Weinberger, 2014), and • corporate reputation (Fombrun and Shanley, 1990). Though extreme negative publicity might be expected to overshadow positive pub licity and advertising in some circum stances, coverage of a larger number of less extreme negative stories might not be as detrimental.

December 20 15

J011L OFRDUERTISIFIGRESERRCH 419


METHODOLOGY

publicity w ould have direct positive

The Model

effects on sales and corporate reputation,

or an n u al com pany perform ance or

The authors believe that u n d e rsta n d

whereas negative publicity will generate

evaluation spanning the period of January

ing the effects of advertising and p u b

negative effects (Spotts, Weinberger, and

1, 2000, to July 1, 2003. After accounting

lic relations on metrics throughout the

Weinberger, 2014).

for m issing qu arterly data for some

The data w ere com posed of quarterly

m arketin g -p ro d u ctiv ity chain is criti

Next, at Level 3 (financial metrics), a

com panies, a final set of 12 com panies

cal. Their m odel begins w ith "m arket

positive relationship between sales and

and 12 time periods were used in the

actions," which they identified as "adver

profitability was expected. The research also

analysis.

tising spending by and publicity about

predicted that profitability would contrib

a com pany" (See Figure 2). Generally,

ute to corporate reputation (Fombrun and

Publicity Volume and Valence

this research predicted that m arketing-

Shanley, 1990; Rose and Thomsen, 2004).

CARMA International provided the publi

communications actions w ould have both direct and indirect effects on

The current research did not model a

city data based on their Media Rating Sys

direct effect of advertising spending and

tem. For each company, CARMA tracked

publicity on profitability, but through

the daily

• customer metrics (Level 1)

direct and indirect effects on corporate-

press across 18 national U.S. magazines

• market metrics (Level 2)

brand attitude and sales. Further, there

and new spapers. Over 25,000 articles

• financial metrics (Level 3)

still exists the potential for an indirect

were included in the data set for the time

effect of publicity and advertising spend

period. The num ber of articles within each

ing on corporate reputation.

valence category was summed to create the

• firm value (Level 4).

v o lu m e

of positive and negative

Specifically, at Level 1 (customer metrics)

Finally, at Level 4 (firm value), the

positive and negative article volume meas

in the productivity chain, the research

direct influence of profit and corporate

ures. Companies were selected based on

examined the effects of advertising spend

rep u tatio n on overall firm value was

the availability of data in each of the five

ing and publicity volum e (negative and

m odeled. The research expected that

matched sources.

positive) on corporate-brand attitu d e

profits and corporate reputation w ould

(Rust

be positively related to the value of the

et aL,

2004). Corporate-brand atti

Advertising Spending

tude m easures the perception held by

firm (Fom brun and Shanley, 1990) w ith

Q uarterly media spending data for tele

a stakeholder of the corporation at one

advertising and publicity having indirect

vision, m agazine, new spaper, radio,

point in time (Balmer and Greyser, 2003).

effects on firm value. It was expected that,

and outdoor were purchased from the

This measure of corporate-brand attitude

as at other levels of the model, publicity

CMR division of TNS Media Intelligence

has been associated w ith corporate stock

w ould have a greater effect than advertis

(A d$pender, 2004). These data w ere

returns and a lead indicator of accounting

ing spending.

sum m ed for each quarter and company,

profits (Aaker and Jacobson, 2001).

yielding 12 advertising spending observa

The current research team expected that

DATA SOURCES

tions for each company.

advertising spending and positive and

To em pirically investigate the research

negative publicity volum e w ould act as

question and test the model, the authors

Corporate-Brand Attitude

signals that directly influence corporate-

used data from five industry sources for

Techtel collected the brand-opinion meas

brand attitude at Level 1 of the m odel

15 firms in the computer technology sec

ure as part of its quarterly "Enterprise

(Spotts and Weinberger, 2010).

tor. These data sets separately track

Panel" survey of approxim ately 1,500

• m edia publicity (volum e and story

com puter software and hardw are (esti

At Level 2 (market metrics), a positive direct relationship betw een corporateb ra n d a ttitu d e and b o th sales and co rp o rate

re p u ta tio n

w as ex pected

stakeholders influential in purchasing valence), • advertising spending,

mated 50 percent response rate). Respond ents were asked their opinion ("positive,"

(C haudhuri, 2002). In addition to direct

• corporate-brand attitude,

"negative," or "none") of companies in the

effects on these variables, indirect effects

• corporate reputation,

personal and netw ork com puting m ar

through corporate-brand attitu d e were

• sales,

ket, a measure of brand attitude that has

also expected. The expectation w as

• profitability, and

been used in previous research (Aaker and

that advertising spending and positive

• firm value.

Jacobson, 2001).

420

JOURflflL

or

ROUERTISIHG RESEARCH

December 2015


Most of these firms sold under a corpo

THEARF.ORG

MODEL EVALUATION

Firm Value

rate brand name and were referred to in

One approach to measuring the value of

Preliminary Analyses

this study by the corporate brand. Brand

the firm is to look at the firm as a brand

The marketing-productivity chain yielded

attitude was represented by subtracting

and to measure its brand equity.

a system of five equations to model the

the percentage of respondents with nega

Following prior m arketing literature

tive opinions about the firm from the per

(Bharadwaj, Bharadwaj, and Konsynski,

centage of respondents w ith a positive

1999; Lindenberg and Ross, 1981; Luo

opinion about the firm.

relationships between the different levels (See Appendix).

and D onthu, 2006; M organ and Rego,

• Equation 1 modeled the effects of mar

For the current study, a subset of Tech-

2009; Rao, Agarwal, and Dahlhoff, 2004),

ket actions (ad spending [AS], positive

tel's Enterprise Panel was used, including

the current research used Tobin's Q, the

publicity volum e [PPV], and negative

Cisco Systems, Com puter Associates, Dell,

ratio of the m arket value of a firm to the

publicity volum e [NPV]) on the cus

EMC Corp., H ewlett Packard, IBM, Intel,

replacement cost of its assets, to estimate

tomer metric of corporate-brand atti

Microsoft, Oracle, PeopleSoft, Siebel Sys

firm intangible company brand value (Lin

tude [CBA]). Employees and time were

tems, and Sun Microsystem.

denberg and Ross, 1981). Many economists

used as control variables in all five

favor this measure, as it is considered a

equations.

Corporate Reputation

forward-looking measure of firm perfor

Corporate reputation was determ ined by

mance (Morgan and Rego, 2009).

• Equations 2 and 3 represented the effects of market actions (AS, PPV, and NPV)

Fortune m agazine's annual Global "Most

In this particular instance, data on

and customer metrics (CBA) on the mar

Adm ired" corporate survey.2 Fortune rat

market and book value of assets for each

ket metrics of sales revenue (sales) and

ings are collected in the fall of each year

firm were abstracted from the Comput-

corporate reputation (CR). Profitability

and published annually at the beginning of

stat database. The Tobin's Q variable is

(profit) was also expected to have an

the following year. A firm's reputation was

thought to be a trailing indicator of the

represented as its annual Fortune ranking

intangible value of the firm. This measure

• Equation 4 represented the effects of

m easured on a scale ranging from f to 10

of firm value is the result of earlier stra

market metrics (sales) on financial met

(10 = the highest corporate reputation). Data

tegic and tactical activities and outcomes.

rics (profit).

collected between 1999 and 2003 were used

The Tobin's Q two quarters beyond the

• Equation 5 modeled the effects of mar

in the current study and were aligned with

baseline period (Q2) of analysis was used

ket (corporate reputation) and financial

customer brand attitude, sales, and profit

as the measure of firm value for this study.

(profit) metrics on firm value (FV).

effect on CR in the third equation.

measures from 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003. Control Variables

Analysis of the model relationships was

Although firms in this study were drawn

conducted using seem ingly unrelated

Quarterly sales revenue and profit for each

from similar industries, firm size poten

regression (Zellner, 1962). Although path

firm were abstracted from the Com pustat

tially influences market actions and busi

analytic m odels often use ordinary least

database. In the model, the current quarter

ness results. Because hum an capital is

squares regression to analyze relation

for all company brands was set for Q2 in

critical for technology firms such as those

ships, seem ingly unrelated regression

the data set. A one-period lag was neces

in the current sample, number of employ

provides the advantage of simultaneously

sary for the seemingly unrelated regression

ees was used to adjust for company size, a

analyzing all equations to account for the

analysis, w hen sales and profit appeared

commonly used proxy (Mintz and Currim,

correlated error terms and produce more

in the overall set of equations as both

2013; Verhoef and Leeflang, 2009; Vorhies,

efficient estimates.

dependent and independent variables.

Orr, and Bush, 2011).

Sales and Profit

M ulticollinearity am ong the predictor

The current period for all equations was

Firm size also was used here rather than

variables w as a potential threat to the

set at Q2 out of the 12 quarters included in

sales to normalize enterprise size because

efficiency of estim ation. Before estim at

the study. In equations where sales or prof

sales volume was one of the current study's

ing the full model, the level of collinear-

its were used as independent variables,

dependent variables. A proxy variable for

ity was assessed through the examination

Q l, the prior period, was used. 2 Fortune was used in this study as an indicator, along with sales, o f market impact.

time also was used to account for systematic

of zero-order correlations and variance

variance across the quarterly periods of the

inflation factors for the predictor variables

study (Neter, Wasserman, and Kutner, 1990).

(Hair et al., 2006):

December 2 0 15

JOURnHL OF R D U E R T IS in G R ESEA R C H 4 2 1


• The majority of correlation coefficients for the predictor variables were between 0.3 and 0.75, indicating moderate cor relation with none approaching the extremes of 0.9 or higher. • The variance inflation factors indi cated low levels of multicollinearity with none larger than the standard 6.0 threshold (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, and Tatham, 2006). • Most of the variance inflation factor scores across the five equations were between 1 and 3.

throughout the chain of marketing productivity. S e e m in g ly U n r e la te d R e g re s s io n A n a ly s is

The first level of the marketing chain of productivity examined the effects of mar ket actions on customer metrics (Level 1). The analysis focused on the effects of priorperiod advertising spending and publicity on current-period corporate-brand attitude (See Table 1 and Appendix: Equation 1): • The seemingly unrelated regression ana lysis revealed this regression equation as significant (%2= 207.91, p < 0.001) with an R2of 0.56. Results indicated that positive publicity volume and negative publicity volume directly influenced corporatebrand attitude, whereas advertising spending had no effect (See Table 1).

When multicollinearity exists in a regres sion equation, it is recommended that vari ables be either removed from the equation or combined, unless there is a theoretical reason for retaining them. In this analysis, all predictor variables represented unique constructs and were retained in their respective equations. A requirement of seemingly unrelated regression is that error terms within the system of equations be related; otherwise the analysis should yield results similar to that of ordinary least squares regression. STATA v.13 was used for the seemingly unrelated regression analysis and reports the Breusch-Pagan Test of Independence for the correlation matrix of residuals for the system of equations.

One study of advertising effects on firm value revealed an insignificant rela tionship, conjecturing that it could be because of overadvertising, competitive intensity, ineffective advertising strategy, or the "erosion of traditional advertis ing" (Wang, Zhang, and Ouyang, 2009, p. 141). The current researchers, on the other hand, found that advertising spend ing does have a strong positive and sig nificant zero-order correlation (0.58) with corporate-brand attitude:

This test was significant, x2(l0) = 125.452, p < 0.001, indicating that the five equations in the system were related and confirming that seemingly unrelated regression was appropriate for this investigation. There were three parts to the core analysis:

• The effect of publicity volume on corporate-brand attitude was consistent with publicity valence. Positive publicity enhanced corporate-brand attitude; neg ative publicity detracted from corporatebrand attitude.

• examining the direct effects in the model using seemingly unrelated regression; • calculating the indirect effects of each variable; • examining the individual effects of the relative influence of predictor variables 422

JO URnflL OF RDUERTISIFIG RESEARCH

The next stage of the chain examined the effects of the customer metrics (Level 1) on market metrics (Level 2). Although not specifically identified in the original model (Rust et al., 2004), the current authors included the direct effects of market

December 2015

actions on sales as well as on corporate reputation at Level 2: • The first market effect investigated was sales (See Figure 2 and Appendix: Equa tion 2); the regression equation was sig nificant (x2 = 439.21, p < 0.001) with an R2 of 0.72. Current-period advertising spending, current-period negative pub licity volume, and prior-period corporatebrand attitude influenced current-period sales performance (See Table 1). As expected, the effects for advertising spending and corporate-brand attitude positively influenced sales, whereas neg ative publicity volume had a negative influence. It is interesting that the effect of current-period positive publicity volume was not significant. • The second model examining market metrics focused on corporate reputation (See Table 1 and the Appendix: Equation 3). Again, the regression equation was significant (%2 = 108.96, p < 0.001) with an R2 of 0.20. Prior-period positive pub licity volume and profit had significant and positive effects on corporate reputa tion, whereas prior-period advertising spending and corporate-brand attitude both had significant but negative effects. The authors found that the negative effects for advertising spending and corporatebrand attitude were contrary to what they had expected. This may have been due to negative economic factors or ineffective creative strategy similar to that which pre viously had been speculated (Wang et al., 2009). The zero-order correlations between corporate reputation and advertising spending and corporate-brand attitude showed positive and significant relation ships (0.27 and 0.25, respectively). The last two stages of the marketingproductivity chain (See Figure 2) detailed


THEARF.ORG

TABLE1 Seemingly Unrelated Regression Estimation Results Predicted Variables

Predictor Variables

Unstandardized Coefficient

Std. Error

Customer M etrics (LI) Corporate Brand A ttitude (x 2 = 207.91, p < 0.001)

Advertising

-0 .4 3 0

1.36

Positive Publicity

1 4 .3 3 * *

1.99

Negative Publicity

-2 .7 1 *

1.39

Employees

5 .8 4 * * *

Time

-0 .3 8

Constant

-4 .2 2 0

0 .5 6 * * *

1.43 0.45 10.38

M arket M etrics (L2) Sales (x2 = 43 9 .2 1 , p < 0.001)

Advertising Positive Publicity Negative Publicity Brand Attitude Employees Time Constant

Corporate Reputation (x2 = 10 8.96 , p < 0.001)

Advertising Positive Publicity

1 ,2 9 2 .7 9 * * *

245.10

3 4 8 .0 5 0

4 0 3 .6 0

-9 5 7 .1 8 * * *

2 6 9 .7 0

7 4 .0 4 * * *

13.48

2 ,0 8 5 .0 7 * * *

2 7 3.50

1 8 2 .2 3 * * - 1 7 ,2 2 7 .1 3 * * * -0 .1 2 * 0 .5 8 * * *

1,810.00 0.0 6 0.10

- 0 .0 6

0.06

Brand Attitude

-0 .0 2 * * *

0 .0 0 3

Profitability

0 .0 0 0 3 * * *

0 .0 0 0 1

Employees

0.03

0.0 6

Constant

-0 .0 6 * * * 6.9 4

72***

8 0 .2 5

Negative Publicity

Time

q

0 .2 0 * * *

0.02 0.0 5

Financial M etrics (L3) Profitability (x2 = 64 .73, p < 0.001)

Sales Employees Time Constant

4 1 3 .8 8 * * *

8 3 .2 0

-9 .1 1

78 .3 8

-1 4 .5 1

18.50

-2 ,7 0 9 .5 5

5 0 0 .4 0

0 2 4 ***

Firm Value (L4) Tobin's Q (x2 = 5 8 .5 2 , p < 0.001)

Profitability

0 .0 0 1 * * *

0 .0 0 0 4

Reputation

-0 .3 5

0.23

Employees

-0 .5 4 * * *

0.15

Time

-0 .3 0 * * *

0.0 6

9 8 2 ***

1.75

Constant

0 .2 6 * * *

*p < 0.06, * y < o .o i, * * *p < o.ooi December 2 0 15

JDURnflL OF II0UERTISII1GRESEARCH 423


the expected influence of market metrics on financial performance (Level 3) and firm value (Level 4; See Figure 1 and Appendix: Equations 4 and 5). • Both regression equations were signifi cant (See Table 1): -^Profit: x2 = 64.73, p < 0.001, R2= 0.24; >Firm Value (L4): FV: x2 = 58.52, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.26), with prior-period sales directly influencing profit and prior-period profit subsequently influencing Firm Value (Tobin's Q + 2 quarters). As expected, sales had a positive influence on profit; however, the effect of profit on corporate reputation was not significant even though it expectedly had a positive influence on firm value. The effects of cor porate reputation were somewhat surpris ing as it was expected to have a positive influence on firm value. The lack of significance, the research ers observed, might have been due to the nature of the companies studied or the close relationship that the Fortune meas ure had with the financial performance (i.e., profitability) of the firm. Profitabil ity and corporate reputation both had positive and significant zero-order cor relations with firm value (0.29 and 0.20, respectively).

• shaping corporate-brand attitudes, • generating sales revenue, and • bolstering corporate reputation. One method for determining relative importance of predictor variables is to calculate standardized coefficients that remove the effect of individual variable scales. The researchers calculated standard ized coefficients for the primary predictor variables in each of the five equations in the model, and they provided the contribution to explained variance for each predictor variable (Verhoef and Leeflang, 2009; See Table 2 and Appendix: Equations 1-5). For customer metrics (Equation 1 [LI]), • Positive publicity volume was over whelmingly dominant in its relative effect on corporate-brand attitude, with negative publicity volume significantly less influential. • Advertising spending reflected the non significant effect discussed earlier. • Positive publicity volume and nega tive publicity volume were responsible for a majority of the explained variance (83 percent). For sales (Equation 2), the standardized coefficients indicated the following:

D irect E ffects Analysis

The results of the seemingly unrelated regression analysis were compared with separate ordinary least squares regres sions. Estimates between the two analyses were similar, with the primary difference in the seemingly unrelated regression ana lysis producing smaller standard errors. This result allowed for a more focused ana lysis of some variables. It is clear that advertising spending and publicity have varying effects on customer and market metrics. This investigation

4 2 4 JOURnflL OF HDUERTISII1G RESERRCH

endeavored, however, to examine the rela tive importance of advertising spending and publicity in

• Advertising spending and corporatebrand attitude had dominant positive influence with negative publicity vol ume having secondary and expectedly negative influence. • Positive publicity volume showed a nonsignificant and weak effect. • In total, the primary predictor variables (advertising spending, positive public ity volume, negative publicity volume, corporate-brand attitude, and profit)

December 2 0 15

were responsible for approximately 54 percent of the explained variance. For corporate reputation (Equation 3), the standardized coefficients showed positive publicity volume with an overwhelming influence and corporate-brand attitude with a secondary, but negative, influence. Profit (Equation 4) was moderate; advertising spending was much weaker. As noted earlier, the negative effects for advertising spending and corporate-brand attitude on corporate reputation may have been due to either multicollinearity or environmental or strategy issues affecting the firm (Wang et al, 2009). The primary predictor variables (advertising spending, positive publicity, negative publicity vol ume, corporate-brand attitude, and profit) accounted for almost all of the explained variance in the regression equation. Sales had a standardized coefficient of 0.58 and was responsible for 99 percent of explained variance in the equation. Equation 5 examined the effects of profit and corporate reputation on firm value. In this case, profit had the domi nant effect (0.37) with no significant effect for corporate reputation. Although not significant, the behavior of corporate reputation was similar to the results of earlier research (Rose and Thomsen, 2004). Profit accounted for approximately 60 percent of the explained variance in the regression equation. The analysis, up to this point, revealed that the following marketingcommunications actions • advertising spending, • positive publicity volume, and • negative publicity volume have varying direct effects on customer, market and financial metrics. But, the authors of the current paper asked the following:


TABLE 2

Predictor Variable Direct Effects Predicted Variables

Standardized

Contribution to

Predictor Variables

Coefficient

Explained Variance

Advertising

-0 .0 3

Customer Metrics (L I) Corporate Brand Attitude

Positive Publicity Negative Publicity

0 .6 7 * * -0 .1 4 *

Time

0.1% 80.6% 3.5% 15.4%

Employees

0.4%

Market Metrics (L2) Sales

Advertising

0 .3 3 * * *

Positive Publicity

0.07

Negative Publicity Brand Attitude

8.5%

0 .3 2 * * *

21.4% 43.8%

Employees Advertising Positive Publicity

1.0%

_0 2 0 * * *

Time

Corporate Reputation

23.1%

2.3% -0 .2 2 * 0 .8 9 * * *

3.8% 62.0%

Negative Publicity

-0 .1 0

Brand Attitude

-0 .5 8 * * *

25.9%

0 s i* * *

7.3%

Profitability

0.8%

Time

0.2%

Employees

0.1%

Financial Metrics (L3) Profitability

Sales

0 .5 8 * * *

0.1%

Employees

1.0%

Firm Value (L4) Firm Value

Profitability Reputation Time Employees

• What were the downstream effects of market actions on profit and firm value? • Do these activities contribute or detract from firm profitability and, ultimately, value?

0 .3 7 * * * -0 .1 1

helpful to understand what influence mar keting actions have on firm profitability and value. To that end, the authors analyzed the combined direct and indirect effects that advertising and publicity had on all the predicted variables. These effects were cal culated using the standardized coefficients generated from the results of the seemingly unrelated regression analysis (See Table 3). For market metrics, the combined effects of advertising spending on sales were about the same as the direct effects (See Tables 2 and 3). The indirect effects of positive publicity volume (through its added impact on corporate-brand atti tude), however, increased its influence on sales substantially. The influence of nega tive publicity volume also increased, but only slightly, due to indirect effects. For corporate reputation, the effects of advertising spending, negative publicity volume, and corporate-brand attitude weakened slightly, and positive publicity volume moderated quite a bit due to indi rect effects. The indirect effects of market actions appeared in the last two equations for financial and firm value metrics. • Advertising spending, positive publicity volume, and corporate-brand attitude all had a positive influence on profit (See Table 3). • As the authors expected, negative publi city volume had a negative effect. • For firm value, advertising spending, positive publicity volume, and negative publicity volume had very weak, if any, influence. • Corporate-brand attitude had some pos itive influence, as did sales.

99.0%

Time

THEARF.ORG

54.7% 5.2% 30.8% 9.4%

Combined Direct-Plus-Indirect Effects

Marketers would like to know that their market actions have some influ ence on the firm beyond simply a sales generator or cost center. It would be

As noted earlier in the discussion, adver tising spending and corporate-brand atti tude had some unexpected negative direct effects. For advertising spending, these

December 2 015

J0URM1L OFHDUERTISIFIGRESEARCH 4 2 5


TABLE 3

magnified when its indirect effect through

Combined Direct and Indirect Effects of Predictor Variables

corporate-brand attitude was considered. These results were consistent with a previ

Predicted Variables

ous review of laboratory studies that con Customer Effect

Market Effect

Brand

Sales

Company

Predictor Variables

Attitude

Revenue

Reputation

A d v e rtis in g S pend

-0 .0 2

P ositive P u b licity

0 .3 3

Financial

Firm Value

Effect

Effect

Profitability

Tobin’s Q

cluded that there was a general publicity superiority effect over advertising (Eisend and Kuster, 2011).

-0 .1 7

0 .1 2

0 .0 6

Negative Publicity

In addition to the overall strong effect of

0 .6 7

0 .2 8

0 .5 5

0 .1 6

0 .0 0

-0 .1 4

-0 .2 5

-0 .0 6

-0 .1 0

-0 .0 5

0 .3 2

-0 .5 2

0 .1 8

0 .1 3

mental effect on corporate-brand attitude,

0 .5 8

0 .1 9

sales, corporate reputation, profitability,

positive publicity, the current analysis N egative P u b licity Brand A ttitu d e S ales Revenue C om pany R e p u ta tio n

-0 .1 1

found that negative publicity had a detri

and even firm value. A lthough some significant negative

P ro fita b ility

0 .3 1

0 .3 3

effects of unfavorable publicity were found, the results did not reveal the dis

unexpected negative effects appeared to

article focused on the relative effects of the

astrous level of influence reported in other

be limited to the attitudinal constructs of

two most prominent forms of communica

negativity studies. One likely explanation

corporate-brand attitude and corporate

tions that customers see:

is that the bulk of negative stories captured

reputation, whereas the combined direct and indirect effects on com pany perfor mance (sales, profit, and firm value) were all positive to varying degrees. As expected, advertising spending had its strongest effect on sales, with commen-

in this m ultiyear sample of daily cover • advertising, created and dissem inated by the company; and

age were common news coverage of only minor or moderate negativity.

• positive and negative publicity, dissem

Many of the prior studies on negative

inated by news organizations and only

information (Ahluwalia et al., 2000; Sharma

partially shaped by the company.

and Lacey, 2004; Weinberger, 1986) focused

surately weaker effects for more removed

on extreme instances of negative product

measures of financial performance (profit

The goal was to develop a deeper under

hazards or failures, which are not the norm

= 0.12 and FV = 0.06). Similarly, corporate-

standing of the overarching research

and are possibly more influential. This

brand attitude had a negative effect on the

question:

reinforces the finding that negative infor

attitudinal m easure of corporate reputa tion, but its influence on financial per

mation dominated or overwhelmed posi W hat is the relative influence

tive information in cases when information

formance measures were all positive and

RQ1:

of positive and negative pub

was extreme (Fiske, 1980).

moderate to strong.

licity and advertising spend ing on measures of success for

Advertising Spending

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

the corporate brand along the

The effects of advertising spending were

The current study heeded the call of mar

marketing-productivity chain?

more com plicated to tease out, ranging

keters for more empirical investigations

from strong to weak depending on which

that m odel the influence of m arketing

Positive Publicity

points along the productivity chain were

communications on consumer, market, and

Positive publicity had a significant overall

exam ined. A d v ertising sp en d in g did

financial metrics im portant to corporations

effect on every metric in the current model,

show a strong positive influence on sales

at their highest levels.

except for firm value. It had the strongest

revenue.

Further, the study m odeled a range of marketing-communications effects for a set

effects on corporate-brand attitude and corporate reputation.

There also was a m oderate indirect positive influence on profitability and a

of durable goods and services companies

It also is notew orthy that the total

small positive indirect effect on firm value.

about which there is less research. This

effect of positive publicity on sales was

Advertising spending's effects, however,

426

JDURflHL OFH D U ER IISinG RESEARCH

D e ce m b e r 2 0 1 5


THEARF.ORG

on corporate-brand attitude and corpo

The significant role of positive and

independent industry sources, restricted

rate reputation were minimal at best and

negative publicity in shaping stakehold

the investigation, it does shed light on

negative in the case of corporate reputa

ers attitudes gives added importance to

the underresearched area of integrated

tion. This finding may be due to multicol-

m anaging the flow of positive publicity

m arketing-com m unications effects and

linearity among the predictor variables, or

and minimizing negative publicity (Spotts

for firms typically neglected in other

as noted by previous scholars, these effects

et al, 2014), not only to protect corporate-

advertising and integrated m arketing-

may be due to negative "environm ental"

brand attitude but also because of its influ

communications studies.

conditions or poor advertising strategy

ence on sales, profitability, and firm value.

Further, although use of older data is not

Advertising and publicity work together

ideal, it is not unprecedented for advertis

(Wang et al., 2009). It is im portant to note, however, that

to influence corporate-brand attitude and

ing research to use older archives in the

the current study focused on spending

corporate reputation. Many advertising

absence of current data (Winer, 1979). In

and not advertising content or creative

agencies have recognized the importance

fact, many empirical generalizations about

execution. W hen exam ining constructs

of advertising and publicity synergy and

advertising that m arketers and academ

such as corporate-brand attitude or cor

today are assisting clients to understand,

ics rely on today were developed from

porate reputation, it w ould be expected

generate, and measure social and digital

experiments and single-source data from

that content m ay have m ore influence

publicity that is tied to advertising cam

consumer package goods firms extending

than simple spending. Further, 2000-2003

paigns and other marketing efforts.

back into the 1970s, '80s, and '90s.

w as an uncertain economic period that

Further, with the advent of social media,

Future research should use more data

included the technology b u st and the

it is no longer just the mixture of advertis

in terms of both the num ber of firms and

September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the

ing and traditional publicity; companies

the num ber of time periods. U pdated

United States. In general, corporate repu

now have to manage consumer-generated

research on the consumer package goods

publicity from Facebook, Twitter, forums,

industry using rich databases to exam

blogs, reviews, and other social platforms

ine the effects of advertising, publicity,

tising may have been relatively weak to

(Christodoulides, Jevons, and Bonhomme,

and social media on firm sales and value

bolster sagging reputations, and this may

2012).

could yield valuable insights. Firm size

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

variables such as in d ustry differences

tations were decreasing. In the face of these headw inds, adver

was taken into consideration, but other

account for the decline of corporate repu tation in the face of advertising spending.

The current exploratory study focused

or economic conditions m ay account for

that companies w ith stronger corporate

on

some of the findings.

reputations actually advertised less than

com m unications activities at the time:

There also were potential lim itations

those w ith weaker reputations. It is pos

advertising as well as media publicity in

based on construct m easurem ent. The

sible that there is a ceiling effect for com

newspapers and magazines. It is possible

Techtel data provided a relatively sound

panies w ith stronger reputations where

that other m arketing-com m unications

m easure of corporate-brand attitu d e

Further, the current analysis showed

th e

m o st

v isib le

m a rk e tin g -

increased advertising does not yield pro

outputs, such as social media not included

(Aaker and Jacobsen, 1994, 2001; Jacobsen

portional gains from more spending. For

in this study, might also influence the cus

and Aaker, 1987) among those in a specific

the set of companies in the current study,

tomer, market, and firm-level metrics.

industry stakeholder group—managers.

corporate reputation was influenced much

This study also focused on a set of tech

Fortune's "most admired" corporations rat

more by profitability and positive publicity

nology firms over a relatively brief period

ing is just one of several measures of cor

than by advertising spending.

of time from 2000 to 2003. For any one

porate reputation, but the only one widely

In sum , looking at the overall m odel

company there are going to be variations

available for the time periods and compa

results, co rporate-brand attitu d e was

from the average performance, and it is

nies studied.

determ ined to be an im portant indicator

difficult to blindly apply the findings of

The measures of positive and negative

that has a strong influence on sales, prof

any one study w ithout further research

publicity volume obtained from CARMA

itability, and firm value, lending support

into how the results apply to an individ

International focus exclusively on stories

to preliminary ideas about the relationship

ual company.

in major print magazines and newspapers.

between these variables (Aaker and Jacob son, 2001).

A lthough availability of data, espe

They do not account for television or digi

cially w hen gathered from m ultiple,

tal coverage. Additionally, this study does

December 2 0 15

J0URF1HL OF HDUERTISIflG RESERRCH

427


not explicitly weight the news volume of stories to account for their extremity or actual audience exposure. Finally, using advertising spending as a proxy for advertising has its limits because it does not consider the quality of the advertising (Maclnnis, Rao, and Weiss, 2002). Care was taken to include the important variables in the overall model; there was a level of multicollinearity among the independent variables that may have affected the interpretation of the results. Alternative factors as observed by other scholars (Rose and Thomsen, 2004; Wang et al, 2009) may be responsible for some of these effects. The current results, however, provide some important, though preliminary, evidence of the relationships between corporate brand performance and marketing-communications tactics. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Practically, the current findings provide an additional step toward helping marketingcommunications professionals and those in the C-suite connect advertising and public relations efforts to a company's financial and nonfinancial measures of productivity. Focusing on advertising and publicity advances the industry's knowledge about their relative influence on a full range of variables. Those variables extend beyond the usual research focus on attitudes in a laboratory context. This research adds considerably more nuance to the marketing-communications components in the marketing-productivity chain outlined earlier (Rust et al., 2004). Demonstrating influence across the pro ductivity chain helps make marketing communications quantitatively more relevant at the executive level. For mar keters, understanding the dynamics of the effects found in the current model of advertising and publicity is crucial, not only for brand building but also for generating measurable results along the 428

JOURnflL

DF ROUERTISIflG

RESERRCH

entire marketing-productivity chain in an increasingly accelerated and saturated media environment. In sum, this research provides the fol lowing takeaways: • The results find support for the import ance of publicity over advertising in many cases for this set of mostly business-to-business technology firms. A Publicity plays an important role in the reputation and branding process (Fombrun and Rindova, 1998; Gray and Balmer, 1998). Even earlier, the role of advertising in corporate brand ing was observed as possibly dimin ishing with marketing public relations and corporate public relations on the rise (Kitchen, 1996). • Digitally and socially driven media have increased the volume of positive and negative publicity far beyond the tradi tional environment. The current results support the importance of positive pub licity. The authors still find, though, that advertising continues to play an impor tant role and has a synergistic effect that itself might fuel publicity: Positive publicity appears to play an important role in shaping stakehold er's attitudes about the corporate brand and, ultimately, the brand's reputation. Further, it directly influ ences sales with flow-through effects on profitability: Although negative publicity is harmful at all levels of the productivity chain, it does not overshadow positive publicity or advertising. • A stream of negative and positive media messages appears to be common for large corporations. In the context of this study—absent extreme, unusual, prominent, and highly publicized nega tive events—negative publicity does not

December 2015

offset the effects of positive publicity and advertising. In the last decade, the line between adver tising and publicity has blurred: Some scholars have speculated that publicity and advertising are synergistic in that, together, they create excitement, and induce sales (e.g., Harris, 1991). In special cases—marketing around the Super Bowl in the United States, for instance, or when a company's advertising is provocative and worthy of press cover age—advertising itself may influence the volume of traditional and social-media stories (Spotts et al, 2014). This concept is supported by research that suggests adver tising accentuates the value of publicity through enhanced brand salience (Ehrenberg, Barnard, Kennedy, and Bloom, 2002) and that other company strategies also may benefit through "flow" effects that are not apparent in volume of spending alone (Hanssens, 2009). The current study provides important fur ther evidence for such synergies and their effects on company performance. (Q )

ABOUT THE AUTHORS H arlan E. S potts

is professor o f marketing in the College

of Business at Western New England University, Springfield, MA, where he teaches campaign planning and marketing management. His research interests focus on issues related to advertising, publicity, social media, and marketing communications. Spotts' research has been published in th e Journal o f Marketing, Journal

o f Advertising Research, Journal o f Advertising, European Journal o f Marketing, International Journal of Advertising, and the Journal o f Marketing Education.

M arc G. W einberger

is professor em eritus in the

Isenberg School of Management a t the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and visiting research scholar in the Grady College at the University of Georgia, Athens, GA. His work has explored the im pact of bad publicity, and his advertising research explores the use of humor


and other message devices. Weinberger’s work has

Publicity: The Moderating Role of Commit

THEARF.ORG

C haudhuri, A. "H ow Brand Reputation Affects

appeared in the Journal o f Marketing, Journal o f the

ment." Journal of Marketing Research 37, 2 (2000):

the Advertising-Brand Equity Link." Journal of

Academy o f Marketing Science, Journal o f Advertising

203-214.

Advertising Research 2,4 (2002): 33-43.

o f Advertising, European Journal o f Marketing, Journal

A ilawadi, K., D. R. L ehmann , and S. A. N eslin.

C hristodoulides, G., C. J evons, and J. Bon -

o f Current Research in Advertising, among others.

"Market Response to a Major Policy Change in

homme .

the Marketing Mix: Learning from Procter and

Evidence for Change: How User-Generated

Gamble's Value Pricing Strategy." Journal of Mar

Content Really Affects Brands." Journal of Adver

keting 65,1 (2001): 44-61.

tising Research 52,1 (2012): 53-64.

uses a sociological lens to understand consumers

A mbler, T., C. B. B hattacharya, J. E dell, K.

C obb-W algren , C. J., C. A. R uble, and N.

Research, Journal o f Advertising, International Journal

M

ic h e l l e

F. W

e in b e r g e r

is assistant professor in the

Medill School, Integrated Marketing Communications

"Memo to Marketers: Quantitative

Department, Northwestern University. Her research

(analyzing how consumption is used to span and

L. K eller, et al . "Relating Brand and Customer

D o nthu . "Brand Equity, Brand Preference,

create boundaries in contexts of collective rituals and

Perspectives on Marketing Management."

and Purchase Intent." Journal of Advertising 24,

social class) and business stakeholders (analyzing

Journal of Services Research 5, August (2002):

3 (1995): 25-40.

the relationship between reputation, marketing

13-25. C onchar , M. P., M. R. C rask , and G. M.

communications, stakeholder attitudes, and firm performance). Her work can be found in the Journal o f

A nderson , E. T., and D. I. S imester. "Long-

Z inkhan . "Market Valuation Models of the

Consumer Research, European Journal o f Marketing,

Run Effects of Promotion Depth on New Versus

Effect of Advertising and Promotional Spend

International Journal o f Advertising, and Journal o f

Established Customers: Three Field Studies."

ing: A Review and Meta-Analysis." Journal of

Marketing Management.

Marketing Science 23 (Winter) (2004): 4-20.

the Academy of Marketing Science 33 (2005): 445-460.

A rndt, J. A. Word of Mouth Advertising. New ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors would like to thank Bernard Mor-

York, NY: Advertising Research Foundation,

D eephouse , D. L., and S. M. C arter . "An

1967.

Examination of Differences Between Organiza tional Legitimacy and Organizational Reputa

zuch, professor, Department of Resource Eco nomics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, for his statistical guidance during the prepara tion of this manuscript.

Balmer, J. M. T., and S. A. G reyser. "Integrat

tion." Journal of Management Studies 42,2 (2005):

ing Corporate Identity, Corporate Branding,

329-360.

Corporate Communications, Corporate Image and Corporate Reputation." European Journal of

D ekimpe, M. G., a n d D. M. H anssens. "The

Marketing A0, 7/8 (2003): 730-741.

Persistence of Marketing Effects on Sales." Mar keting Science 14,1 (1995): 2-20.

REFERENCES Batra, R., J. G. M yers, and D. A. A aker . A aker, D. A., and R. Jacobson. "The Financial

Information Content of Perceived Quality." jour

Advertising Management, 5th ed. Upper Saddle

E ast, R., K. H ammond , and W. L omax. "Meas

River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1996.

uring the Impact of Positive and Negative Word of Mouth on Brand Purchase Probability." Inter

nal of Marketing Research 31,2 (1994): 191-201. A aker, D. A., and R. J acobson. "The Value Rel

evance of Brand Attitude in High-Technology

B erlyne, D. E. "Emotional Aspects of Learn

national Journal of Research in Marketing 25 (2008):

ing." Annual Review of Psychology 15, 1 (1964):

215-224.

115-143. E hrenberg, A., N. Barnard , R. K ennedy, and

Markets." journal of Marketing Research 38, 4 (2001): 485-493.

Bharadwaj, A., S. B haradwaj, and B. K onsyn-

H. Bloom . "Brand Advertising as Creative Pub

"Information Technology Effects on Firm

licity." Journal of Advertising Research 42,4 (2002):

ski.

A d$ pender. "Competitive Media Reporting and

Publisher's Information Bureau." TNS Media

Performance as Measured by Tobin's Q." Man

7-18.

agement Science 45, 7 (1999): 1008-1024. E isend, M., and F. K uster. "The Effectiveness

Intelligence/CMR, New York, 2004. B utters, G. R. "A Survey of Advertising and

of Publicity Versus Advertising: A Meta-Analytic

A hluwalia , R., R. E. B urnkrant, and H. R.

Market Structure." The American Economic

Investigation of its Moderators." Journal of the

U nnava . "Consumer Response to Negative

Review 66,2 (1976): 392-397.

Academy of Marketing Science 39 (2011): 906-921. December 2 0 15

JOURnflL OF HDUERTISIRG RESEHRCH 4 2 9


F eldman , J. M., and J. G. L y nch . "Self-

New PR to Gain a Competitive Edge. New York,

Journal of Marketing Research 39, 4 (2002):

Generated Validity and Other Effects of Meas

NY: Wiley, 1991.

391-407.

Behavior." Journal of Applied Psychology 73, 3

J acobsen, R., and D. A. A aker. "The Strategic

M adden , T. J., F. F ehle , and S. F ournier .

(1988): 421-435.

Role of Product Quality." Journal of Marketing 51,

"Brands Matter: An Empirical Demonstration

4 (1987): 31-44.

of the Creation of Shareholder Value Through

Perception: The Impact of Negative and Extreme

J oshi, A., and D. M. H anssens. "The Direct

Science 34, 2 (2006): 224-235.

Behavior." Journal of Personality and Social Psych

and Indirect Effects of Advertising Spending on

urement on Beliefs, Attitudes, Intentions and

F iske, S. T. "Attention and Weight in Person

ology 38 (1980): 889-906.

Branding." Journal of the Academy of Marketing

Firm Value." Journal of Marketing 74, 1 (2010): 20-33.

Fombrun, C., and V. R indova. "Reputation Man

M ela, C. F., S. G upta, and D. R. L ehm ann .

"The Long-Term Impact of Promotion and Advertising on Consumer Brand Choice." Jour

agement in Global 1000 Firms: A Benchmarking

K eller, K. L., and D. R. L ehm ann . "The

Study." Corporate Reputation Review 1, 3 (1998):

Brand Value Chain: Optimizing Strategic and

205-215.

Financial Brand Performance." Marketing Man

M intz , O., and I. S. C urrim . "What Drives

agement May/June (2003): 26-31.

Managerial Use of Marketing and Financial

F ombrun, C., and M. S hanley . "What's in a

nal of Marketing Research 34, 2 (1997): 248-261.

Metrics and Does Metric Use Affect Perfor

Name? Reputation Building and Corporate

K eller, K., and D. R. L ehmann . "Brands and

mance of Marketing-Mix Activities?" Journal of

Strategy." Academy of Management Journal 33, 2

Branding: Research Findings and Future Priori

Marketing 77, March (2013): 17-40.

(1990): 233-258.

ties." Marketing Science 25, 6 (2006): 740-759.

G olan , G., and W. W anta . "Second-Level

K im , S. H., J. C arvalho , and C. C ooksey .

for the Disproportionate Influence of Unfavor

Agenda Setting in the New Hampshire Primary:

"Exploring the Effects of Negative Publicity in

able Information." Journal of Consumer Research

A Comparison of Coverage in Three News

a University Setting." Public Relations Review 33

9,4(1982): 301-310.

papers and Public Perceptions of Candidates."

(2007): 233-235.

M izerski, R. W. "An Attributional Explanation

Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 78, 2 (2001): 247-259. G ray, E. R., and J. M. T. Balmer. "Managing

M organ , N. A., and L. L. R ego. "Brand Port K itchen , P. J. "Public Relations in the Promo

folio Strategy and Firm Performance." Journal of

tional Mix: A Three-Phase Analysis." Marketing

Marketing 73,1 (2009): 59-74.

Intelligence and Planning 1, 2 (1996): 5-12.

Corporate Image and Corporate Reputation." Long Range Planning 31, 5 (1998): 695-702. H air , J., W. C. Black , B. J. Babin , R. E.

N eter, J., W. W asserman, and M. H. K utner. L indenberg , E., and S. Ross. "Tobin's Q Ratio

Applied Linear Statistical Models, 3rd ed. Home-

and Industrial Organization." Journal of Business

wood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, 1990.

54, January (1981): 1-32.

A nderson , and R. L. T atham . Multivariate

O ts, M., and G. N yilasy. "Integrated Mar

Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice

L oda , M. D., and B. C. C oleman . "Sequence

keting Communications (IMC): Why Does It

Hall, 2006.

Matters: A More Effective Way to Use Advertis

Fail? An Analysis of Practitioner Mental Mod

ing and Publicity." Journal of Advertising Research

els Exposes Barriers of IMC Implementation."

H anssens, D. M. Empirical Generalizations About

45, 4 (2005): 362-372.

Journal of Advertising Research 55, 2 (2015):

Marketing Impact. Boston, MA: Marketing Sci

132-145.

ence Institute, 2009.

Luo, X., and N. D onthu . "Marketing's Credibil ity: A Longitudinal Investigation of Marketing

R ao, V. R., M. K. A garwal, and D. D ahlhoff.

H anssens, D. M., and M. G. D ekimpe. "The

Communication Productivity and Shareholder

"How is Manifest Branding Strategy Related to

Flow Story." Marketing Management Summer

Value." Journal of Marketing 70, 4 (2006): 70-91.

(2012): 37-44.

the Intangible Value of a Corporation." Journal of Marketing 68, 4 (2004): 126-141.

M acI nnis, D. J., A. G. R ao, and A. M. W eiss. H arris, T. L. The Marketer's Guide to Public Rela

"Assessing When Increased Media Weight

R eid, M. "Performance Auditing of Integrated

tions: How Today's Top Marketers Are Using the

of Real-World Advertisements Helps Sales."

Marketing Communication (IMC) Actions

430

JD U M IH L OF HDUERTISinG RESEARCH

December 2015


THEARF.ORG

and Outcomes." Journal of Advertising 34, 1

the Firm: The Case of the U.S. Pharmaceutical

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 39

(2005):41-54.

Industry." The Journal of Product Innovation Man

(2011): 736-756.

agement 21,5 (2004): 297-308. W ang , F., X. P. Z hang , and M. O uyang. "Does

R ies, A., and L. R ies. The Fall of Advertising and

the Rise of PR. New York, NY: Harper Collins

S potts, H. E., and M. G. W einberger. "Market

Advertising Create Sustained Firm Value? The

Publishers, 2002.

place Footprints: Connecting Marketing Com

Capitalization of Brand Intangible." Journal of the

munication and Corporate Brands." European

Academy of Marketing Science 37 (2009): 130-143.

R omeo , J. M., G. W einberger, and D. A ntes.

Journal of Marketing 44, 5 (2010): 591-609. W einberger, M. G. "Products as Targets of

"An Investigation of the Communication Cues that Affect Consumers' Responses to Negative

S potts, H. E., S. C. P urvis, and S. P atnaik .

Negative Information: Some Recent Findings."

Product Safety News." Association for Consumer

"How Digital Conversations Reinforce Super

European Journal of Marketing 20, 3/4(1986):

Research (ACR) Conference 23 (1996): 456.

Bowl Advertising." Journal of Advertising

110-128.

Research 54,4 (2014): 454-468. W einberger, M. G., and J. B. R omeo . "The

R ose, C., and S. T homsen . "The Impact of Cor

porate Reputation on Performance: Some Dan

S potts, H. E., M. G. W einberger, and M. F.

Impact of Negative Product News." Business

ish Evidence." European Management Journal 22,

W einberger. "Publicity and Advertising: What

Horizons 32,1 (1989): 44-50.

2 (2004): 201-210.

Matter Most for Sales?" European Journal of Mar keting 48,11/12 (2014): 1986-2008.

W einberger, M. G., C. T. A llen, and W. R. D il

K umar, and R. K. S rivastav. "Measuring Mar

V akratsas, D., and T. A mbler. "How Advertis

munications: The Consumers Union/Chrysler

keting Productivity: Current Knowledge and

ing Works: What Do We Really Know?" Journal

Controversy." Journal of Advertising 10, 4 (1981):

Future Directions." Journal of Marketing 68, 4

of Marketing 63,1 (1999): 26-43.

20-28.

V erhoef, P. C., and P. S. H. L eeflang. "Under

W iner, R. S. "An Analysis of the Time-Varying

S ethuraman , R., G. T ellis, and R. Briesch .

standing the Marketing Department's Influence

Effects of Advertising: The Case of Lydia

"How Well Does Advertising Work? Generaliza

Within the Firm." Journal of Marketing 73 (March

Pinkham." Journal of Business 52, 4 (1979):

tions From a Meta-Analysis of Brand Advertis

2009): 14-37.

563-576.

V orhies, D. W., L. M. O rr, and V. D. Bush .

Z ellner, A. "An Efficient Method of Estimating

"Improving Customer-Focused Marketing

Seemingly Unrelated Regressions and Tests for

Sharma , A., and N. Lacey. "Linking Product

Capabilities and Firm Financial Performance

Aggregation Bias." Journal of the American Statis

Development Outcomes to Market Variation of

Via Marketing Exploration and Exploitation."

tical Association 27 (June 1962): 348-368.

lon .

R ust, R. T., T. A mbler, G. S. C arpenter, V.

"The Impact of Negative Marketing Com

(2004): 76-89.

ing Elasticity." Journal of Marketing 48, 3 (2011): 457-471.

A P PE N D IX Marketing-Productivity Chain System of Equations and Correlation Matrices Equation 1: CBA( = P0 + p^AS,_± + P2*PPV(1 + P3*NPVf ± + P4*EMP( + P5*TIMEt + e.CBA 2

3

6

SD

51.81

26.47

1.00

2. B2C Advertising Spending (f - 1)

9.41

1.54

0.5 8

1.00

3. Positive Publicity Volume ( t - 1)

3.45

1.24

0.7 0

0.75

1.00

4. Negative Publicity Volume ( t - 1)

2.99

1.38

0.4 5

0.56

0.72

1.00

5. Time

7.50

3 .4 6

-0 .0 3

-0 .0 9

0.12

0.24

1.00

6. Employees

3.69

1.33

0.6 4

0.61

0.61

0.4 2

-0 .1 0

1. Corporate Brand A ttitude (f)

1

4

Mean

December 201 5

5

1.00

JOURRAL OF H0UERTISH1G RESEARCH 4 3 1


Equation 2: SALES, = P0 + p±*CBAt l + P2 AS, + P3*PPV, + P4*NPV, + P5*EMP, + P6*TIME, + e$ALES Mean

SD

1

6,077.77

6 ,0 9 6 .6 3

1.00

51.81

26 .2 3

0.63

1.00

3. B2C Advertising Spending (t)

9.4 0

1.56

0.7 0

0.57

1.00

4. Positive Publicity Volume (t)

3.4 5

1.21

0.69

0.71

0.75

1.00

5. Negative Publicity Volume (f)

3.10

1.28

0.41

0 .4 8

0.5 8

0.71

1.00

6. Time

7.50

3 .4 6

0.02

-0 .0 2

-0 .0 6

0.10

0.12

1.00

7. Employees

3.69

1.33

0.80

0.6 3

0.60

0.6 4

0.4 3

-0 .1 0

1. Sales Revenue (t) 2. Corporate Brand Attitude (t - 1)

2

3

4

5

6

7

1.00

Equation 3: CR, = P0 + P^CBA, 3 + P2*AS, ± + P3* PPV,.! + P4 NPV, ± + P5*PROFIT,_1 + P6*EMP, + P /T IM E , + ECR Mean 1. Corporate Reputation (t)

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

6.53

0.81

1.00

2. Corporate Brand Attitude (t - 1)

51.78

26 .2 3

0.25

1.00

3. B2C Advertising Spending (t - 1)

9.41

1.54

0.27

0.5 8

1.00

4. Positive Publicity Volume ( f - 1)

3.4 5

1.24

0.39

0 .7 0

0.7 5

1.00

5. Negative Publicity Volume (t - 1)

2.99

1.38

0.20

0.4 6

0 .5 6

0.72

1.00

56 5.87

975.87

0.51

0 .2 9

0 .4 6

0.49

0.28

1.00

7. Time

7.50

3.4 6

-0 .2 2

■0.02

- 0 .0 9

0.12

0.24

-0 .1 9

1.00

8. Employees

3.6 9

1.33

0.2 1

0.6 3

0.61

0.61

0.42

0.42

-0 .1 0

6. Profitability ( t - 1)

1.00

Equation 4: PROFIT, = p0 + P^SALES,^ + P2*EMP, + P3*TIIVIE( + e pR0FIT Mean

SD

4 9 9 .7 5

877.07

1.00

2. Sales Revenue (f - 1)

8.10

1.23

0.50

1.00

3. Time

7.50

3.46

-0 .0 8

-0 .0 4

1.00

4. Employees

3.6 9

1.33

0.4 6

0.80

-0 .1 0

1. Profitability (t)

Equation 5: FV,+2 = P0 + P^PROFIT,

+ B *CR

1

+ P3* e m p ,+ p 4* t im e t

Mean

SD

2

3

4

1.00

+ e Fv

1

2

3

4

5

1. Firm Value ( t + 2)

3.7 8

2.60

1.00

2. Profitability ( t - 1)

5 6 5.87

975.87

0.2 9

1.00

3. Corporate Reputation (t - 1)

6.81

0.85

0.22

0.37

1.00

4. Time

7.50

3.4 6

-0 .4 0

-0 .1 9

-0 .3 4

1.00

5. Employees ( f - 1)

3.69

1.33

-0 .1 1

0.42

0 .2 0

-0 .1 0

=

=

*CBA - corporate-brand attitude; AS ad spending; PPV positive publicity volume; NPV Control variables are EMP = number of employees and TIME = time period. **AS, PPV, NPV, SALES, and EMP were logarithmically transformed in the analysis.

4 32

JOUMIHL OF HDUERTISIflG RESERRCH

December 2015

1.00

=negative publicity volume; SALES = sales revenue; PROFIT =profitability; FV =firm value;