a better advertising planning grid

JOHN R. ROSSITERLARRY PERCYANDROBERT J. DONOVAN

A BETTER ADVERTISINGPLANNING GRID

1, JOHN R. ROSSITER is professor of managementat Ihe Australian Graduate School o( fVlanagemem.He holds a B.Psych (Hons) degree (rom the Univer-sity of Western Australia, an M Sc from UCLA, anda Ph D from the University of Pennsylvania2. LARRY PERCY is senior vice president, directorof strategic research at Lintas:USA Prior to that, MrPercy was corporate research director at HBM/CREAMER advertising agency in Pittsburgh and ad-juncl professor at the University of Pittsburgh'sGraduate School of Business. 3. ROBERT J.DONOVAN is associate professor of management atthe University ol Western Australia and president ofDonovan Research, a social and marketing researchconsultancy.

There is much debate andconflicting evidence about"how ads work." What is

clear is that there is no one wayin which ads work. Rather, itdepends on the advertising situ-ation: the type of product, thenature of the target audience,and the purchase motivation forbuying the brand are some ofthe major factors that determinewhat type of ad will work best.For certain products, a single-fact "USP" ad may be most ef-fective (e.g.. Crest toothpaste),whereas for others an "image"ad with no explicit copy claimsmay be most effective (e.g.,Coca-Cola). Moreover, situationswhere the target audience ishighly involved with the pur-chase decision may require adswith multiple, convincing claims(e.g., first purchase of a personalcomputer), whereas situations oflow purchase involvement (e.g.,repeat purchase of bathroom tis-sues) may most effectively useads with rather "peripheral"content (Petty and Cacioppo,1986), such as a celebrity pre-senter or an exaggerated humor-ous approach as in the Mr.Whipple ads for Charmin tis-sues. Gone are the days when asingle model, such as ACCA orAIDA or Ehrenberg's (1974) ATRmodel, to name just a few,would suffice for the advertisingmanager. Rather, the managernow needs a more comprehen-sive model which accounts forthe major differences in how adswork depending on the advertis-ing situation.

In particular, models ex-pressed in the relatively simpledescriptive "grid" format arevery likely to be used by manag-ers; witness the persistent popu-larity in marketing texts and ex-ecutive seminars of the BostonConsulting Group's "growth-share" grid ("Stars," "ProblemChildren," "Cash Cows," and"Dogs") which the originators,incidentally, have considerablyupdated. Despite the risk ofoversimplification, the grid for-mat is easily grasped and willstimulate the manager—in thecase of advertising, the productmanager, advertising planner, orcreative director—to think aboutmajor options that might other-wise be ignored in an intuitiveplanning process. The well-known FCB advertising planninggrid (Vaughn, 1980, 1986; Ratch-ford, 1987; Ratchford andVaughn, 1989) has played thisvaluable role over the pastdecade.

Our purpose in this article isto present and discuss a newerand improved alternative adver-tising planning grid based onthe work of Rossiter and Percy(1987), which we call theRossiter-Percy Grid. The paper isdivided into five sections whichdiscuss the advantages of theRossiter-Percy Grid while at thesame time pointing out the limi-tations of the FCB Grid. Thesesections discuss: (1) brandawareness as a necessary precur-sor to brand attitude; (2) the in-volvement dimension of brandattitude; (3) the motivational di-

Journal of ADVERTISING RESEARCH—OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 1991 11

ronaldvoorn

Sticky Note

Rossiter, John R., Larry Percy and Robert J. Donovan (1991). "A Better Advertising Planning Grid." Journal of Advertising Research, 31: 11-20.

A D V E R T I S I N G P L A N N I N G G R I D

mension of brand attitude; (4)advertising tactics based on thegrids; and (5) theoretical exten-sions of the Rossiter-Percy Grid.

Brand Awareness As aNecessary Precursor toBrand Attitude

The FCB Grid (see Figure 1)and the main part of theRossiter-Percy Grid (see Figure2) are essentially models of atti-tude (representing how consum-ers evaluate products or brands).The FCB Grid dimensionalizesconsumers' attitudes (towardproducts) in terms of two di-mensions, "involvement" and"think-feel," and the Rossiter-Percy Grid dimensionalizes con-sumers' attitudes (toward prod-ucts and brands) in terms of twodimensions, "involvement" and"type of motivation." These atti-tude dimensions are discussedlater since our first point is morefundamental.

The Rossiter-Percy Grid positsbrand awareness as a necessarycommunication objective for ad-vertising, prior to brand attitude(whereas the FGB Grid is an atti-tude-only model). Especially intoday's commercially clutteredenvironment, with so many

The Rossiter-Percy Gridposits brand awareness asa necessary communication

objective for advertising,prior to brand attitude . . .

brands to choose between, it isno use advertising to develop afavorable consumer attitude to-ward a product or brand unlessthe advertising first makes theconsumer reliably aware of thebrand either before or when inthe choice situation. Brand atti-tude without prior brand aware-

Figure 1

The FCB Grid*

HighInvolvement

LowInvolvement

Think

• life insurance

contact, •economylenses-

•aulo insuranceconsole

TV•

- 35 mm camera stereo -• washer dryer compon

portable •car Ty"^"^"^ - exterior

battery house painlrazor•

•instamaticcamera

• creditcard

• molor1 - headacheoil

remedy

" suntan -insecticide dry loiion

bleach salad*oil

-insectrepellant

• regularshampoo

•liquid -nondisposatbleach ^azor

_ disposat>ierazor

papertowels

* ' - sportscar

family carejipensivelyyafrh

ent " ' " ' • "•eyeglasses -wallpaper

• haircoloring perfume

• .

• wine lordinner

•complexion'face pailysoap

ground -family'coffee* sleak restaurant

, „ . , . , 'Wine for

•men- -chickenpensive 'watch * low lar cigarette greeting

p<zza carddeodorant _ - peanut butter

soap , . .fast-food restaurantfruit- frozen

women s baked -imported

magazine goods . , Q _ , , I , , . . ,ie . . '^9^'^' • donul frozen

cigarettes • donul shop

sauce ' . ^• regular beer

regular-' "*"' soft drinks "salty

" ^ " ^ snackssoap

Feel

Note that higher involvement is toward the fop ol the vertical axis and both dimen-sions are continua. The Rossiter-Percy Grid has the high-involvement quadrants at thebottom. {Source: Ratchlord, 1987, p. 31)

ness is an insufficient advertis-ing communication objective.The fundamental advertisingcommunication objectives are tomaximize brand attitude givenbrand awareness (that is, tomaximize brand attitude condi-tional on the prior establishmentof brand awareness). It may alsobe noted that the most success-ful new-product market share orsales-prediction models, such asASSESSOR (Urban and Katz,1983) and NEWS (Wilson, Prin-gle, and Brody, 1982), beginwith brand awareness as the ini-tial communication objective ofadvertising.

As shown in Figure 2, theRossiter-Percy approach distin-guishes brand awareness interms of brand recognition,where the brand is chosen at thepoint of purchase, and brandrecall, where the brand, in orderto be chosen, must be remem-bered before the point of pur-chase. Table 1 shows the adver-tising creative tactics recom-mended for the two types ofbrand awareness in the Rossiter-Percy Grid. When the brandawareness communication objec-tive depends on brand recogni-tion, the creative executionsshould show the package or the

12 Journal of ADVERTISING RESEARCH—OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 1991

A D \ ' K R T 1 S 1 N G P L A N N I N G G R I D

visually recognizable brandname; moreover, for a newbrand, the package or nameshould be shown in (associatedwith) the category-need context.On the other hand, when thebrand awareness communicationobjective depends on brand recall,the advertising executions mustencourage associative learning(Allen and Janiszewski, 1989)between the category need andthe brand name, since ourbrand's name is but one brandname that will be trying to "at-tach itself" to the category needin the consumer's memory. Vari-ous other devices, such as bi-zarre executions and jingles, arealso recommended for specifictypes of advertising where theymay be appropriate to increasebrand recall.

The first way in which theRossiter-Percy Grid is an im-proved planning model, there-fore, is that it incorporates theprior step of brand awareness.Without brand awareness, themanagement and creative effortput into generating brand atti-tude is in vain because the atti-tude can never be operational.

The InvolvementDimension of Attitude

It is now widely accepted thatpurchase decisions differ accord-ing to the consumer's level ofinvolvement in making the prod-uct or brand choice and that in-volvement is most evidentlymanifest in the complexity orsimplicity of attitudes formedand held toward the product orbrand.

The FCB Grid implies a some-what mixed conceptualization of"involvement." Us measure ofinvolvement (Ratchford, 1987)asks consumers to "Please ratethe process of choosing a brandof (product) on each of the fol-lowing scales. Please base yourrating on your most recent

Figure 2

The Rossiter-Percy Grid

Brand Awareness

Brand Recognition

(at point-of-purchase)

Brand Recali

iphor to purchase)

PlusBrand Attitude

Type of Motivation

Informational(negative motivations)

Transformational(positive motivations)

Lowinvoivement(trialexperiencesufficient)

Typeof

Decision

HighInvoivement(search andconvictionrequiredprior topurchase)

Typical product categories(brands may differ):

aspirin•light beer' detergent• routine industrialproducts


• candy• regular beer•fiction novels

Brand loyalsRoutinized favorablebrand switchers


• microvifave oven• insurance• home renovations• new industrial

products

Typical product categories(brands may differ);

• vacations•fashion clothing•cars• corporate image

New category usersExperimental or routinizedother-brand switchers

' Other-brand loyals

choice of a brand of (product)."The three scales defining in-volvement encompass decisionimportance, degree of thoughtrequired (note the possible con-founding here with the "think-feel" dimension), and perceivedrisk of choosing the wrongbrand. The respondent sample isconfined to those who have

bought the product category atleast once in the past, and theinvolvement ratings are aver-aged across all respondents.

This approach confuses prod-uct-category involvement, brand-choice involvement, and the dif-ferential perceived risk experi-enced by target audiences whodiffer in their experience or fa-


A D V F R T I S i M G P L A N N I N G G R I D

miliarity with the product cate-gory and brand. The Rossiter-Percy Grid, in contrast, definesinvolvement purely in terms ofperceived risk (Nelson, 1970).Specifically, involvement is de-fined as the risk perceived bythe typical target audience mem-ber—who could range from acompletely naive noncategoryuser to a very experienced loyalbuyer of the brand—in choosingthis brand on this (the next) pur-chase occasion.

The FGB conceptualization ofinvolvement is inadequate on atleast three counts. Firstly, a con-sumer could be quite an experi-enced buyer of the product cate-gory such that it has become lowinvolvement, yet become highlyinvolved when a new brand en-ters the category (see alsoHoward's 1977 model of LimitedProblem Solving). Therefore, thefirst factor in which involvementwith the brand purchase deci-sion must vary is target-audiencefamiliarity, which translates intoknowledge or "ability to

Without brand awareness,the management and creative

effort put into generatingbrand attitude is in vainbecause the attitude can

never be operational.

choose." As Gensch and Javalgi(1987) have shown, experiencedconsumers and inexperiencedconsumers have quite differentchoice processes, and, from anadvertising communicationsstandpoint, it seems obviousthat a consumer who has neverheard of the brand must acquiremore communication effects andbecome more involved in thechoice than a consumer who is aregular buyer of that brand. TheFCB Grid makes no such distinc-tion between target-audiencetypes. Rather, Ratchford (1987)off ers only the general caveatthat "readers should be awarethat there is considerable disper-

sion of individual responsesaround the means for someproducts." The FGB Grid pro-poses no conceptual basis forconsumer differences.

The second problem with theFGB conceptualization of in-volvement is that it confusesproduct-category involvementwith various brands' involve-ment. By the argument above, ifconsumers differ in their in-volvement in choosing a givenbrand, then brands too must dif-fer in their "involvement rating"depending on the target audi-ence in question. The FCB Gridplots gross product-category in-volvement across all users of thecategory (conceptually) and em-ploys 'last brand bought" tomeasure this (operationaily).This approach provides inade-quate and probably erroneousinformation to the advertiser,who must specifically considerhow the advertised brand is per-ceived by a particular target audi-ence—as represented in theRossiter-Percy approach.

Table 1Brand Awareness Tactics with Specific Tactics for Brand Recognition and Brand Recaii

Brand awareness: general tactics

1, Determine the predominant type of brand awareness for the target audience,

2. Match the ad s brand awareness stimuli with buyer response.

3- Seek a unique advertising execution.

4. Maximize brand awareness contact time.

Brand recognition tactics

a. Ensure sufficient exposure of the brand package and thename in the ad.

b. The category need should be mentioned or portrayed(uniess immediately obvious).

c. After the initial burst, less media frequency is needed forbrand recognition {though check brand attitude strategyfirst).

Brand recall tactics

a. Associate the category need and the brand in the main copyline.

b. Keep the main copy line short.

c. Use repetition of the main copy line for brand recaii.

d. Include a personal reference (unless it is already stronglyimplied).

e. Use a bizarre execution (as long as it is appropriate to brandattitude).

f. (For broadcast ads) a jingle may increase brand recall.

g. Requires high media frequency relative to competitors.



A third problem with the FCBconceptualization of involvementis that involvement is seen as acontinuum, despite the dichoto-mous-looking diagram they useto portray their grid. In the FCBGrid, the division between lowand high involvement is madearbitrarily. And, along the in-volvement dimension within lowand high, some products aremore involving than others.

Maclnnis and Jaworski (1988)have criticized involvement con-tinuum models for their failureto specify when consumer deci-sion-making changes from beinglow involvement to high in-volvement or vice versa. For ex-ample, the well-known Elabora-tion Likelihood Model proposedby Petty and Cacioppo (1986) isa unidimensional involvementmodel that fails to specify thesituations in which consumerswill follow the "peripheral" (lowinvolvement) route versus the"central" (high involvement)route in processing advertisingmessages.

The Rossiter-Percy approach,on the other hand, makes apurely empirical and simply di-chotomous distinction betweenlow and high involvement. Theparticular target audience con-sumer, in choosing this brandon this occasion, either regardsthe choice as being sufficientlylow in perceived risk to simplyto "try the brand and see," rep-resenting low involvement; orelse regards the brand-choicedecision as being risky enoughto be worth processing advertis-ing information at a more de-tailed level, representing highinvolvement. Numerous qualita-tive interviews with consumers,commissioned or conducted bythe authors over an extensiverange of product categories(commercial and governmentstudies conducted by IMI, Inc.in the United States and byDonovan Research Pty. Ltd. in

Australia), have convinced usthat virtually all consumers re-gard brand-choice decisions inthis dichotomous low- or high-involvement manner rather thanoperating as if involvement werea continuum.

The second way in which oursis an improved advertising plan-ning model, therefore, is that, inthe Rossiter-Percy Grid, involve-ment is clearly defined (in termsof perceived risk in the targetaudience's choice of this brandon this occasion); involvement ismore precisely conceptualized asbeing dependent on both thebrand ar\d the target audience'sfamiliarity with it within theproduct category; and an opera-tional dichotomy for asssigningbrands and target audiences toeither low- or high-involvementquadrants is provided.

The MotivationalDimension of Attitude

Product or brand attitudes aredistinguished not only by thelevel of involvement in makingthe choice but also by the pur-chase motive which caused theattitude to be formed initially.

. . . "think" and "feel" arecute summary labels that donot in any way do justice tothe complexity of consumer

purchase motivations.

Motives piay the important func-tion of energizing consumer pur-chase action; a product andbrand usually are bought to sat-isfy a motive or occasionallymultiple motives. Through pur-chase and subsequent usage, theattitude based on each motive isthus consummated. Qualitativeresearchers spend a good deal oftheir time trying to identify pur-

chase motives, and advertisingagencies, too, are always seekingthese "triggers to action."

As noted, the FCB Grid doesnot distinguish product-categorychoice from brand choices. Thisposes a problem for the FCBGrid's motivational "think-feel"dimension when it is realizedthat product-category purchasemotives are often different frombrand-choice motives. For in-stance, in the Rossiter-Percy ter-minology (1987), purchase of anautomobile, the product cate-gory, is generally due to thestraightforward informationally-based problem-removal motive(convenience of transport),whereas choice of particularbrands or models of automobilesis likely to depend in a morecomplex way on transformation-ally-based sensory gratificationor social-approval motives (man-ifest in benefits such as attractiveappearance, exciting power, ad-miration by others, and soforth). The FCB Grid's classifica-tion of "think-feel" does not al-low for differences betweenproduct-category and brand-pur-chase motivations.

The FCB "think-feel" dimen-sion is rather superficially con-ceptualized. As the variousspokespersons for the FCB Gridhave intimated, "think" and"feel" are cute summary labelsthat do not in any way do jus-tice to the complexity of con-sumer purchase motivations.Yet, the FCB authors have donelittle to expand on this weakconceptualization of motivation.In Ratchford's paper, the"think" category is translatedinto one single motive,"utilitarian." This hardly doesjustice to all the types of motivesthat may cause consumers to"think" about their decision.

In the Rossiter-Percy ap-proach, which was suggested byKatz's functional approach (1960)and Fennell's original application


A D V E R T I S I N G P L A N N I N G

of multiple motives to advertis-ing (1978), there are five motivesthat would correspond approxi-mately with the "think" side ofthe FCB Grid. In our approach,these are defined as informationalmotives which are (negativelyreinforcing) purchase motiva-tions that can be satisfied byproviding information about theproduct or brand. These nega-tively-originated motives are:problem removal, problemavoidance, incomplete satisfac-tion, mixed approach-avoidance,and normal depletion. Each ofthese motives is operatively dis-tinct and has different implica-tions for advertising messagestrategy (Rossiter and Percy,1987).

The "feel" class of purchasemotives has been somewhatmore elaborated by the FCB re-searchers, which is surprising inthat the "think" motives un-doubtedly are more prevalentand diverse. In the most recentFCB paper, by Ratchford andVaughn (1989), the "feel" classi-fication is separated into threemotives: ego gratification (al-though this is mistakenly givenalso a negative, ego defensive,conceptualization); sensory; andsocial acceptance.

In the Rossiter-Percy ap-proach, the approximate analogyto the "feel" motives are ourtransformational motives, a termborrowed from Wells (1981),which are (positively reinforcing)purchase motives that promiseto enhance the brand user byeffecting a transformation in thebrand user's sensory, mental, orsocial state. Our system distin-guishes three such positivetransformational motives: sen-sory gratification, intellectualstimulation (achievement, mas-tery), and social approval.Whereas two of our motives,sensory gratification and socialapproval, are similar to FCB's,Rossiter and Percy (1987) give

Table 2Typical Emotions that Might be

Motives

Informational motives

1. Problem removal

2. Problem avoidance

3. Incomplete satisfaction

4. Mixed approach-avoidance

5. Normal depletion

Transformational motives

6. Sensory gratification

7. Intellectual stimulation

8. Social approval

Used to Portray Each MotivationTypical emotional states

Anger—- relief

Fear -* relaxation

Disappointment-* optimism

Guil ts peace of mind

Mild annoyance —• convenience

Dull* -^ eiated

Bored* -• excited

Apprehensive' — flattered

* Optional prior negative emotions for transformational motives. Positive emotions can arisefrom a neutral prior state and do not require negative emotions beforehand.

these motives much clearer defi-nitions and theoretical support.

A further difficulty with theFCB approach, and with that ofmany other writers who havefocused on "emotions" and"feelings," is that the writerstend almost always to be refer-ring to positive emotions or feel-ings when they use these terms.It should be evident that negativefeelings are also necessary foreffective advertising when theproduct or brand purchase deci-sion is negatively motivated (seealso Bagozzi and Moore, 1989,and Yalch, 1990). Table 2 showshow negative motives (informa-tional in our attitude grid) andpositive motives (transforma-tional in our attitude grid) bothincorporate "feelings." Negativemotives generate negative feel-ings but may also induce posi-tive feelings subsequently; posi-tive motives need to generateonly positive feelings.

The negative-motivation ver-sus positive-motivation distinc-tion is crucial to advertising tac-tics (see later) and is not repre-sented in the FCB Grid.Negative feeling or affect iscaused by an aversive eventsuch as a consumer problem oc-

curring. Although negative, thiscauses motivational drive to in-crease, which energizes the con-sumer to remove the aversion bysolving the problem through ac-quiring information about prod-uct or brand choice and thenbuying and using the chosenitem. Drive or motivation level isthus reduced, and the consumerreturns to the equilibrium stateand action ceases.

Positive feeling or affect iscaused by appetitive or intrinsi-cally rewarding events such assensory, intellectual, or socialstimulation. Presentation ofthese positive stimuli throughanticipated and then actual con-sumption also causes drive ormotivation to increase. Althoughthe drive increase in this case isaccompanied by enhanced posi-tive affect, the action doesn'tcontinue indefinitely, because ofbiological cessation mechanisms.For example, you can only eat alimited number of candy bars insuccession! Thus, in the positivemotivation cases as well, theconsumer seeks eventually toreturn to an equilibrium.

Yet another difficulty with themotivational dimension in theFCB Grid concerns measure-


A D V t . R T I 5 I N G I ' L A N N I N G G R I D

. . . qualitative researchersare in the best position to

make motivationalclassifications of product andbrand choices for particular

target audiences.

ment. Ratchford (1987) is of theopinion that motivational classi-fications can be measured quan-titatively. We differ and believethat motivational assessment isessentially a qualitative skillwhich gave rise to the originalname for "motivation" research.This is not to say that all con-sumer purchase motives are hid-den or psychoanalytic or other-wise unmeasurable so much asthat consumers frequently donot have accurate insight intowhat motivated them to pur-chase a particular brand. Any-one who has worked closely indesigning advertising creativestrategy will be familiar with theextreme subtlety in motivationaldifferences (see also Fennell,1989).

It is our belief, based on nu-merous case histories we haveobserved, that qualitative re-searchers are in the best positionto make motivational classifica-tions of product and brandchoices for particular target audi-ences. A good example of thefailure of the quantitative ap-proach is in Ratchford (1987)where the investigator gave uptrying to measure the social-ap-proval motive, and thusdropped this quantitative mea-surement scale, because "re-spondents tended to say that thedecision was not based on whatothers think." So many brandchoices are patently based onsocial approval that to omit thismotive because of the inability ofquantitative measures to mea-sure it is testimony to the steril-

ity of the overly quantitative ap-proach. Motivational classifica-tion requires qualitativeinference from what consumerssay and do and can rarely bevalidly achieved by asking con-sumers themselves to make theclassification.

A final criticism of the FCBGrid's conceptualization of the"think-feel" dimension is that itcorrelates highly positively withthe "involvement" dimension.In the Ratchford (1987) series ofstudies, the correlation betweenthe "involvement" scale and the"think-feel" scale was .63. Thisis not too surprising at a superfi-cial level when one realizes thatconsumers generally think care-fully about things that are highlyinvolving and do less thinkingabout things that they buy basedon feelings alone. However,such a conceptualization omitsthe whole class of high involve-ment-transformational products,such as new cars, houses, orluxury vacations, that are cer-tainly "thought" about but areprimarily motivated by expectedpositive affect or positive"feelings."

The Rossiter-Percy conceptual-ization of motivation is morecomprehensive and sounderthan the overly simplistic "think-feel" conceptualization. It isbased on motivational mecha-nisms taken from learning the-ory: it looks at negative and pos-itive motives, and their associ-ated negative and positivefeelings, but does not invoke thenotion of "thinking" in what isessentially a motivational ratherthan a cognitive dimension.

To summarize, the third wayin which the Rossiter-Percy Gridis an improvement upon theFCB Grid is in the respectivemodels' conceptualization ofconsumer motivations. TheRossiter-Percy model allowsproduct-category purchase mo-tives and brand purchase mo-

tives to differ, whereas the FCBapproach does not. Rossiter andPercy's model identifies eightoperatively distinct purchasemotives, in comparison with theFCB model which distinguishesonly one "think" motive andseveral "feel" motives and can-not measure the obviously im-portant motive of social ap-proval. Furthermore, the FCBmodel concentrates solely onpositive "feelings" despite thefact that negative "feelings" mo-tivate consumers at least equallyas often, as reflected in theRossiter-Percy distinction be-tween "informational" and"transformational" motives. Fi-nally, FCB's admittedly vagueconceptualization of "think-feel"is reflected in quantitative resultswhere this dimension is shownto be highly correlated with the"involvement" dimension. TheRossiter-Percy model eschewsthe quantitative approach in fa-vor of the fundamentally qualita-tive identification of motives.These motives operate indepen-dently of the degree of involve-ment in purchasing the productcategory or the brand.

Grids andAdvertising Tactics

The Rossiter-Percy Grid ismuch richer than the FCB Gridin terms of specifying advertis-ing tactics. Writing about theFCB Grid, Ratchford (1987)makes the comment that "Theadvertising implications of posi-tioning in a particular quadrant. . . should be fairly obvi-ous . . ." Oh that it were thiseasy! An attempt to relate theFCB Grid to stimuli that mightbe used in ads is the subject ofthe Ratchford and Vaughn (1989)paper. They attempt to relate theFCB Grid to two proprietary FCBtechniques, VIP, or Visual ImageProfile, which consists of 100photos of faces representing dif-

Journal ot ADVERTISING RESEARCH—OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 1991 17


ferent personalities and life-styles, and ICON, or ImageConfigurations, which consistsof 60 photos of situations of dif-fering emotional content. Anirony with pictorial rating-scalemethodology is that, whereas itwas developed to escape the"confines" of purely verbal tech-niques, it is ultimately validatedagainst verbal rating-scale meth-odology (e.g., Ruge, 1988).Ratchford and Vaughn go alongwith this fallacy in claiming va-lidity for their pictorial ratingsby comparing them with verbalratings. (The analogy is: if En-glish is okay, why worsen thingsby translating the English intoJapanese and then back again?)But the more serious criticism isthat, in their study, neither thepersonality-lifestyle photos northe emotional photos are relatedto the various motives nor evento the general distinction be-tween "think" and "feel." Forinstance, the authors state thatthe "emotional associations un-covered through ICON might berelated to any one of the threecategories of feeling . . ." (1988).This is hardly very helpful tacti-cally for advertising planners orcreative people. Similarly, theauthors make the concludingcomment that: "While theredoesn't seem to be an elaboratebody of theory linking the emo-tions revealed by ICON to brandchoice, this probably is notneeded." This lack of theorymeans that, when using the FCBGrid, it is by no means clearwhich advertising tactics toemploy.

Contrast the theoretical devel-opment of tactics in the Rossiter-Percy Grid as shown in Tables 3to 6. It may be seen that thereare cognitive and affective tactics(considerations B and A, respec-tively), or in FCB's parlance"thinking" and "feeling" tactics,in every quadrant of theRossiter-Percy Grid. This reflects

Table 3Advertising Tactics for the Low Involvement/informational BrandAttitude Strategy*

Consideration A (emotional portrayal of the motivation):

1. Use a simple problem-solution format.

2. It is not necessary for people to like the ad.

Consideration B (benefit-claim support for perceived brand delivery):

3. Include only one or two benefits or a single group of benefits.

4. Benefit claims should be stated extremely.

5 The benefits should be easily learned in one or two exposures (repetition serves mainly asa reminder function).

* In each brand attitude quadrant of the Rossiter-Percy Grid, Consideration A tactics relate tothe Motivation dimension and Consideration B tactics relate to the Involvement dimension(see Figure 2).

the fact that all advertisementsrepresent a balance between so-called "rational" and"emotional" stimuli in ads (andonce more we emphasize thatemotions can be negative as wellas positive). As can be seen fromthe tables, the low-involvementtactics tend to focus on just oneor two benefits as in the typicalconsumer packaged-goods("USP") type of approach. Onthe other hand, the high-in-volvement tactics tend to focuson the multiple-benefits type ofapproach which characterizesthe carefully considered compar-ative decisions made when con-sumers perceive considerablerisk in choosing the right brand

from the product category. Elab-orate discussion of these tacticscan be found in Rossiter andPercy (1987). Thus, in terms ofadvertising tactics, the Rossiter-Percy approach is more fullyspecified than the FCB ap-proach. This is the fourth andprobably most important way inwhich ours is an improved plan-ning model.

Relationship to OtherTheoretical Constructs

Constructs developed in onearea that can accommodate con-structs and data in other areasare clearly of greater theoreticaland practical value than are con-

Table 4Advertising Tactics for the Low Involvement/Transformationai BrandAttitude Strategy*


1. Emotional authenticity is the key element and is the single benefit.

2. The execution of the emotion must be unique to the brand.

3. The target audience must like the ad.


4. Brand delivery is by association and is often implicit.

5. Repetition serves as a build-up function and a reinforcement function.

' See note. Table 3.



structs that are limited to rela-tively narrow domains. Unlikethe FCB Grid, the Rossiter-PercyGrid accommodates a number ofother theoretical constructs inconsumer decision-making andadvertising. By way of illustra-tion, the relation of the Rossiter-Percy Grid to three contempo-rary areas of consumer behaviorand advertising theory is de-scribed below.

Holbrook and Hirschman(1982) contend that the tradi-tional information-processing"problem-solving" approach toconsumer behavior ignores expe-riential aspects of consumer be-havior. They propose an alterna-tive processing model, the "ex-periential" view, to account forhedonistic and aesthetic con-sumption behavior. Holbrook

. . in terms of advertisingtactics, the Rossiter-Percy

approach is more fullyspecified than the FCB

approach.

and Hirschman's experientialview appears to describe con-sumer decision-making process-ing for Rossiter and Percy's posi-tively originating motives. Theirinformation-processing approachdescribes consumer decision-making processing for negativelyoriginating motives.

A second area that can be re-lated to the Rossiter-Percy Gridis the relationship between atti-tude toward the ad {A^d) ^^'^attitude toward the brand (Ag),and their relative contributionsto ad impact, as measured byattitude change, purchase inten-tion, or purchase behavior (e.g.,Lutz, MacKenzie, and Belch,1983; Gardner, 1985; Batra andRay, 1986; Machleit and Wilson,1988). The major issue in much

Table 5Advertising Tactics for thie High Invoivement/lnformationai BrandAttitude Strategy"

Consideration A (emotional portrayal of the motivation);

1. Correct emotional portrayal is very important early in the product life cycle but becomesless important as the product category reaches maturity.

2. The target audience has to accept the ad's main points but does not have to like the aditself.


3. The target audience's "initial attitude" toward the brand is the overriding considerationthat must be taken into account.

4. Benefit claims must be pitched at an acceptable upper level of brand attitude (don't

overctaim).

5. Benefit claims must be convincing (don't inadvertently underclaim).

6. For target audiences vwho have objections to the brand, consider a refutational approach,7. If there is a well-entrenched competitor and your brand has equivalence or advantages on

important benefits, consider a comparative approach.

* See note, Table 3.

of this research is whether ornot A^j is a necessary precursorto Ag. The Rossiter-Percy modelpredicts that A j would be a ma-jor mediator of Ag for transfor-mational advertising and espe-cially low-involvement transfor-mational advertising, but not forinformational advertising. Sup-port for this prediction is givenin Rossiter and Percy (1987).

A third area to which theRossiter-Percy Grid can belinked, though somewhat more

tenuously than in the above twocases, is the distinction between"lecture" and "drama" styles ofadvertising (Weils, 1988; Deigh-ton, Romer, and McQueen,1989). Lecture is persuasion via"reasoned argument," whereasdrama is an attempt to persuademore by "expressions of feelingand judgments of verisimilitude"(Deighton et al., 1989). InRossiter and Percy's theory, lec-ture executions should be moreeffective than drama for low-

Tabie 6Advertising Tactics for the High Invoivement/Transformational BrandAttitude Strategy*


1. Emotional authenticity is paramount and should be tailored to lifestyle groups within thetarget audience.

2. People must identity personally with the product as portrayed in the ad and not merely likethe ad.


3. Many high involvement/transformational advertisements also have to provide information,

4. Overclaiming is recommended but don t underclaim.

5. Repetition serves as a build-up function (often for subsequent informational ads) and areinforcement function,

* See note, Table 3.



and high-involvement informa-tional advertising; drama shouldbe more effective than lecture forlow-involvement transforma-tional advertising; and a combi-nation of lecture and dramashould be more effective (thaneither alone) for high-involve-ment transformational advertis-ing, such as by using drama adson TV followed by lecture ads inprint.

Overall, therefore, a furtheradvantage of the Rossiter-PercyGrid is that it can accommodateother theoretical constructs inconsumer decision-making andadvertising. Therefore, theRossiter-Percy Grid should be ofbroad and lasting use. The griditself is a necesssary simplifica-tion of the detailed theory to befound in Rossiter and Percy(1987). However, as noted at theoutset, the grid format makesthe theory more likely to be re-ferred to and used by advertis-ing managers.

Summary

Our purpose in this paper hasbeen to propose a "grid" ap-proach to advertising planningthat is better than the widelyknown FCB Grid. The improvedapproach, developed by Rossiterand Percy (1987), has numeroustheoretical and practical advan-tages over the FCB approach.The advantages of the Rossiter-Percy Grid include:

• Advertising communicationobjectives that include brandawareness as a necessary pre-cursor to brand attitude(thereby constituting a six-cellgrid). Brand awareness is clas-sified as either brand recogni-tion or brand recall.

• Definition of the involvementdimension of attitude in termsof perceived risk for a particu-lar product type, target audi-ence, and brand choice. In-

volvement with the purchasedecision is functionally dichot-omized into low versus highinvolvement.

• Definition of the motivationaldimension of attitude in termsof eight specific motives thatcan be qualitatively distin-guished. The eight motives arecategorized as negatively rein-forcing, informational motivesversus positively reinforcing,transformational motives.

• Identification of advertisingcreative tactics that fit the twobrand-awareness cells and thatfit the four brand-attitudecells—to provide guidance tomanagers in planning advertis-ing campaigns and to agenciesin creating ads.

• Accommodation of constructsfrom other contemporary theo-ries of consumer behavior andadvertising.

The FCB Grid, in contrast,omits brand awareness and fo-cuses only on attitude; it doesnot distinguish product-categorychoice and brand choices; it doesnot allow for target-audience fa-miliarity with the advertisedbrand in measuring involvementwith the purchase decision; itmakes too simple a distinctionbetween motives in terms ofthinking and feeling such thatthinking is confounded with in-volvement and feeUng fails todistinguish positive and negativeemotions; it is basically unspeci-fied overall in terms of theoryand cannot be readily related toother constructs in consumerbehavior and advertising; and,finally, the FCB Grid falls shortby not making recommendationsfor advertising tactics.

We offer these criticisms withfull recognition and appreciationof the valuable pioneering con-tribution that the FCB Grid hasmade. Its many limitations,however, should suggest tomanagers that it is time to move

onto a better advertising plan-ning grid. We are flattered thatthe Rossiter-Percy Grid has re-cently been put to practical useas the major input for a new ex-pert system for advertising de-veloped by Wharton marketingprofessors (Burke, Rangaswamy,Wind, and Eliashberg, 1990) inconjunction with Young & Rubi-cam. We propose the Rossiter-Percy Grid as a planning ap-proach for advertising creativestrategy that overcomes the FCBGrid's hmitations while still re-taining the simplicity of the gridformat that makes such modelseasy to understand in theoryand likely to be used inpractice. •

References

Allen, C. T., and C. A. Janis-zewski. "Assessing the Role ofContingency Awareness in Atti-tudinal Conditioning with Impli-cations for AdvertisingResearch." journal of MarketingResearch 26, 1 (1989): 3CM3.

Bagozzi, R. P., and D. J. Moore."Intense Negative Emotions asPositive Mediators of BehavioralIntentions." Paper presented atthe Annual Conference, Associa-tion for Consumer Research,New Orleans, October 1989.

Batra, R., and M. L. Ray. "Af-fective Responses MeditatingAcceptance of Advertising."Journal of Consumer Research 13, 2(1986): 234-49.

Burke, R. R.; A. Rangaswamy; J.Wind; and J. Eliashberg."ADCAD: A Knowledge-BasedSystem for Advertising Design."Marketing Science 9, 3 (1990): 212-29.

Deighton, J.; D. Romer; and J.McQueen. "Using Drama toPersuade." Journal of ConsumerResearch 16, 3 (1989): 335-43.



Ehrenberg, A. S. C. "RepetitiveAdvertising and the Consumer."jourtial of Advertising Research 14,2 (1974): 25-34.

Fennell, G. "Consumers' Percep-tions of the Product-UseSituation." journal of Marketing42, 2 (1978): 38-47.

. "Action vs. Attitude:Motivation Makes theDifference." In Proceedings of theSocit'fi/ for Consumer Psychology,American Psychological Association,D. W. Schumann, ed. Washing-ton, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation, 1989.

Gardner, M. P. "Does AttitudeToward the Ad Affect Brand At-titude Under a Brand EvaluationSet?" journal of Marketing Research22, 2 (1985): 192-98.

Gensch, D. H., and R. G. Ja-valgi. "The Influence of Involve-ment on Disaggregate AttributeChoice Models." journal of Con-sumer Research 14, 1 (1987): 71-82.

Holbrook, M. B., and E. C.Hirschman. "The ExperientialAspects of Consumption: Con-sumer Fantasies, Feelings, andFun." Journal of Consumer Re-search 9, 2 (1982): 132-40.

Howard, J. A. Consumer Behavior:Theory ami Applications. NewYork:' McGraw-Hill, 1977.

Katz, D. "The Functional Ap-proach to the Study ofAttitudes." Public Opinion Quar-terly 24, 2 (1960): 163-204.

Lutz, R. J.; S. B. MacKenzie; andG. E. Belch. "Attitude Toward

the Ad as a Mediator of Adver-tising Effectiveness: Determi-nants and Consequences." InAdvances in Consumer Research,Vol. 10, R. P. Bagozzi and A. M.Tybout, eds. Ann Arbor, Ml:Association for Consumer Re-search, 1983.

Machleit, K. A., and R. D. Wil-son. "Emotional Feelings andAttitude Toward the Advertise-ment: The Roles of Brand Famil-iarity and Repetition." Journal ofAdvertising 17, 3 (1988): 27-35.

Maclnnis, D. J., and B. J. Jawor-ski. "Two-Routes to PersuasionModels in Advertising." Work-ing paper. Department of Mar-keting, Graduate School of Man-agement, University of Arizona,Tucson, 1988.

Nelson, P. E. "Information andConsumer Behavior." journal ofPolitical Economy 78, 2 (1970);311-29.

Petty, R. E., and J. T. Cacioppo.Communication and Persuasion:Central and Peripheral Routes toAttitude Change. New York:Springer-Verlag, 1986.

Pringle, L. G.; R. D. Wilson; andE. I. Brody. "NEWS: A Decision-Oriented Model for New Prod-uct Analysis and Forecasting."Marketing Science 1, 1 (1982): 588-98.

Ratchford, B. T. "New Insightsabout the FCB Grid." journal ofAdvertising Research 27, 4 (1987):24-38.

, and R. Vaughn. "On theRelationships Between Motivesand Purchase Decisions: Some

Empirical Approaches." In Ad-vances in Consumer Research, Vol.16, T. K. Srull, ed. Provo, UT:Association for Consumer Re-search, 1989.

Rossiter, J. R., and L. Percy. Ad-vertising and Promotion Manage-ment. New York: McGraw-Hill,1987.

Ruge, H. D. "The ImageryDifferential." Working paper.Institute for Consumer and Be-havioral Research, University ofthe Saarland, West Germany,1988.

Urban, G. L., and G. M. Katz."Pretest-Market Models: Valida-tion and ManagerialImplications." journal of Market-ing Research 20, 3 (1983): 221-34.

Vaughn, R. "How AdvertisingWorks: A Planning Model." jour-nal of Advertising Research 20, 5(1980): 27-33.

. "How AdvertisingWorks: A Planning ModelRevisited." journal of AdvertisingResearch 26, 1 (1986): 57-66.

Wells, W. D. "How AdvertisingWorks." Video presentation,Needham, Harper & Steers (nowDDB Needham), Chicago, 1981.

. "Lectures and Dramasand Measurement Challenges."Paper presented at the Market-ing Science Institute Conference,Wellesley, MA, June 1988.

Yalch, R. F. "Review of Cognitiveand Affective Responses to Advertis-ing, P. Cafferata and A. Tybout,eds. Lexington, MA: LexingtonBooks, 1989." journal of Market-ing Research 27, 2 (1990): 238-40.


a better advertising planning grid

Documents