Oracles on "Advertising": Searching for a DefinitionJef I. Richards and Catharine M. Curran

Traditional definitions of advertising include a series of elements that distinguish the field from others. Eachinnovation in communication has been used for advertising, and in some way, each has changed advertising,which in turn has changed the set of elements used in its definition. However, there are or should be someessential elements that determine whether an activity is advertising. Unfortunately, a discussion identifyingthese elements is lacking in the marketing and advertising literature. This study is designed to begin an opendiscussion of what constitutes those essential elements, with the ultimate aim of constructing an improveddefinition of advertising. The Delphi method, originally developed for financial forecasting, is used to engagea diverse group of advertising experts in a dialogue to reconsider those elements and construct a new defini-tion of advertising.

Jef I. Richards (Ph.D., Universityof Wisconsin Madison; JD, IndianaUniversity) is a Professor ofAdvertising, The University of Texasat Austin.Catharine M. Ciuran (Ph.D., NewMexico State University) is anAssistant Professor of Marketing,Creighton University.

Joumal of Advertising,Volume XXXI, Number 2Summer 2002

What Is Advertising?Consumers tend to think virtually every form of commercial promotional

activity, from concert sponsorship to telemarketing, is a form of "advertis-ing" (Schultz 1995). Industry practitioners and academics, however, tend todistinguish certain forms of promotion as "not advertising" (Rust and Oliver1994). Certain activities might better be classified, they suggest, as salespromotion, promotional products, direct marketing, or public relations. Buteven these professionals may find it challenging to pigeonhole some activities,such as word of mouth and product placement in movies. It is often stated thatconsumers are exposed to something like 3500 advertisements each day (e.g.,Godin 1999), but that number varies by what we classify as advertising.

Over the years, advertising has been defined many ways. Industry iconLeo Burnett defined it as "selling corn fiakes to people who are eatingCheerios" (Bendinger 1993, p. 60), U.S. President Calvin Coolidge called it"the life of trade" (Bradley, Daniels, and Jones 1960, p. 13), English professorS.I. Hayakawa termed it "a symbol-manipulating occupation" (Hayakawa 1964,p. 269), and media guru Marshall McLuhan referred to it as "the cave art of thetwentieth century" (Fitzhenry 1993, p. 19). Although each of these undoubt-edly captures some aspect of advertising's essence, they lack sufficient preci-sion to distinguish advertising from some other forms of speech. In contrast,textbook and dictionary definitions tend to strive for greater specificity.

In an early advertising textbook, Daniel Starch (1923, p. 5) suggested,"The simplest definition of advertising, and one that will probably meet thetest of critical examination, is that advertising is selling in print." He wasreferring to an oft-quoted definition coined in 1904, when John E. Kennedytold Albert D. Lasker that advertising is "salesmanship in print" (Gunther1960, p. 58). The reference to "print," of course, refiected the media of thetime. A more modern definition, encompassing a broader range of media,can be found in the American Heritage Dictionary (2000): "The activity ofattracting public attention to a product or business, as by paid announce-ments in the print, broadcast, or electronic media."

Because disciplines and practices change over time, definitions may re-quire revision. As a practice, advertising has changed radically over theyears, thanks to new techniques and technologies. So the definitions we use.

64 The Journal of Advertisingand teach to students, may be out of date. But thisterm is so elemental to the practice that it might betaken for granted. Other than from a discussion inSchultz's (1995) piece on direct marketing, no articlesabout this word's definition could be found in theadvertising and marketing research journals, and justone mention was found in the trade press (Freeman1999). Other related terms, such as "marketing"(Gronroos 1989; Kotler and Levy 1969; Lavin 1997;Lichtenthal and Beik 1984; Simms 1999), "direct mar-keting" (Bauer and Miglautsch 1992; Murrow andHyman 1994; Rapp 1989; Schofield 1995; Schultz 1995),and "public relations" (Gordon 1997; Harlow 1976;Hutton 1999), have received a bit more attention.

The study presented here is designed to begin fill-ing that gap in the field's literature and initiate adialogue about how "advertising" is, and might be,defined. We begin by discussing the potential value ofsuch a dialogue.

Is This Important, or Just a SemanticExercise?

The American Marketing Association's (AMA) Com-mittee on Definitions, in 1961, argued for uniformityof marketing terms, so textbook authors did not needto waste pages creating and defending their own per-sonal definitions (Bennett 1995, p. v). Common defi-nitions also help propagate a common language,allowing practitioners from geographically disparatelocations to understand one another. But those argu-ments apply to all marketing terminology. A wordlike "advertising" is even more critical for careful cir-cumscription, being fundamental to its own discipline.This single word delimits the profession, drawingboundaries to separate advertising from closely re-lated fields. Without those property Unes, advertisingpractitioners have no identifiable area of expertise.As Andreasen (1994) notes, "Careful definition of anyfield is important to the advancement of scholarshipand the training of future researchers."

If those lines are drawn too narrowly, the profes-sion may be shrinking. Not too many years ago. Rustand Oliver (1994) predicted "the death of advertising"based on the growth of such disciplines as sales pro-motion, direct marketing, and new media at the ex-pense of traditional advertising methods. By acceptinga narrow definition that sweeps a relatively limitedrange of activities under the umbrella of advertising.Rust and Oliver's (1994) prediction makes more sensethan if we adopt a definition that encompasses a broadmenu of marketing communication methods as sub-categories of advertising.

Too broad a definition also can pose problems. Bysubjugating direct marketing and such as mere formsof advertising, ad practitioners would be expected tohave a much broader range of knowledge and skills.It also may be demeaning to specialists in those areasand result in "turf battles." And, of course, a broaddefinition might make the separate term "marketingcommunication" unnecessary.

The definition we use also has practical implica-tions. It can determine what is taught in advertisingcourses, what is covered in advertising trade publica-tions, and the domain of the field's professional orga-nizations. When a court or regulator assesses whetheran activity is "advertising," the definition applied canhave far-reaching impact. For example, in Public Citi-zen V. F.T.C. (1989), a court had to decide whether t-shirts and other promotional products displayingtobacco logos would be restricted under the Smoke-less Tobacco Act, which requires "advertising" forsmokeless tobacco products to include a health warn-ing. In the end, that court called these items "adver-tising," because it defined advertising as any actionto "call public attention to [a product] ... so as toarouse a desire to buy" (Public Citizen v. F.T.C. 1989,p. 1554). Definitions used by experts or that appearin textbooks often infiuence the outcome of legal pro-ceedings (e.g., Thompson Medical Co. 1984).

The definition of this word, therefore, has morethan trivial implications. The next section looks athow we have defined it in recent years. If anyone hasa grasp on the meaning of advertising, it should bethe "experts" who write textbooks about this topic.

Definitions in Recent and Current UseA survey of recent advertising and marketing text-

books makes it obvious there is no widely adopteddefinition at this time. Table 1 lists a sample of thosedefinitions, and each is different. There are, how-ever, certain recurring elements: (1) paid, (2)nonpersonal, (3) identified sponsor, (4) mass media,and (5) persuade or infiuence. Given those elements,we can capture the essence of most definitions in asingle prototypical phrase (referred to subsequentlyas the Current Definition):

Advertising is a paid nonpersonal communicationfrom an identified sponsor, vising mass media topersuade or influence an audience.

This same set of elements can be found in textbooksfrom decades ago (Table 2). Although this definitionmay have been appropriate during the Nixon Admin-istration, many technologies and approaches devel-

Summer 2002 65

Table 1Textbook Definitions of Advertising

Advertising Textbooks

Arens (1996)

Belch and Belch (1998)

O'Guinn, Allen, and Semenik (2000)Vanden Bergh and Katz (1999)

Wells, Burnett, and Moriarty (1998)

Marketing Textbooks

The nonpersonal communication of information, usually paid for andusually persuasive in nature, about products (goods and services) orideas by identified sponsors through various media.Any paid form of nonpersonal communication about an organization,product, service, or idea by an identified sponsor.A paid, mass-mediated attempt to persuade.Nonpersonal communication for products, services, or ideas that is paidfor by an identified sponsor for the purpose of influencing an audience.Paid nonpersonal communication from an identified sponsor using massmedia to persuade or influence an audience.

Armstrong and Kotler (2000)

Bearden, Ingram, and LaForge (1998)

Czinkota et al. (2000)

Lamb, Hair, and McDaniel (2000)

Perreault and McCarthy (1999)

Zikmund and d'Amico (1999)

Any paid form of nonpersonal presentation and promotion of ideas,goods, or services by an identified sponsor.The element of the marketing communications mix that is nonpersonal,paid for by an identified sponsor, and disseminated through masschannels of communication to promote the adoption of goods, services,persons, or ideas.A/onpersona/communication that is paid for by an identified sponsor, andinvolves either mass communication V\a newspapers, magazines, radio,television, and other media (e.g., billboards, bus stop signage) or direct-to-consumer communication via direct mail.Impersonal, one-way mass communication about a product ororganization that is paid for by a marketer.Any pa/dform of nonpersonal presentation of ideas, goods, or servicesby an identified sponsor.An informative or persuasive message carried by a nonpersonal mediumand paid for by an identified sponsor whose organization or product isidentified in some way.

oped since then may affect the applicability of the fiveelements. The most obvious new technology is theInternet, which makes advertising more "personal"and calls the "nonpersonal" element into question.Rosenfield (1997) suggests that this makes theInternet a form of direct marketing, not advertising.But most technological advancements in advertising(e.g., narrowcasting, database mining, selective bind-ing) have contributed to making advertising moreand more interpersonal, more like personal selling. Ifwe accept Rosenfield's (1997) argument. Rust andOliver (1994) may be correct in asserting that"[v]irtually the whole of marketing communicationswill be 'not advertising' in the relatively near future."

Shelly Lazarus, chairman and CEO of Ogilvy andMather Worldwide, recently refiected on the changes

wrought by the Internet and suggested it "has funda-mentally changed the definition of advertising" (Free-man 1999). Keith Reinhard, chairman of DDBWorldwide, likewise refiected on the emergence ofinteractive methods such as the Internet, saying, "Ad-vertising is on the threshold of a new golden age. Ifand it's a big ifif we're willing to broaden itsdefinition" (Reinhard 2001).

Other technological developments have aimed atmaking advertising more affordable. Targeting re-duces cost by reducing waste, and the Internet, bar-ter, and product placement also have cut costs insome instances. In some cases, advertisers pass theexpense of advertising to someone else, making it alow- or even no-cost proposition. For example, somecooperative arrangements put the total advertising

66 The Journal of AdvertisingTabie 2

Older Textbooi( DefinitionsAdvertising Textbooks

Bolen(1981)

Cohen (1972)

Dunn (1969)

Kaufman (1980)

Any controlled form of nonpersonal presentation and promotion of ideas, goods,or services by an identified sponsor that is used to inform and persuade theselected market.Advertising is any paid form of nonpersonal presentation and promotion of ideas,goods, or services by an identified sponsor.Advertising is paid, nonpersonal communication through various media bybusiness firms, nonprofit organizations and individuals who are in some wayidentified in the advertising message.Advertising is any form of nonpersonal presentation of goods, services or ideasfor action, openly paid for, by an identified sponsor.

cost on a national brand, thereby subsidizing a localretailer. Merchandising, or putting an ad message onan article of clothing or other product, can pass ad coststo a consumer who buys that product. So the questionof whether a definition need include "paid" also is prob-lematic if we interpret "paid" to mean it is a cost to theadvertiser. But if we interpret it as cost to anyone, thenthis element probably would encompass every market-ing communication, including public relations.

Every aspect of this Current Definition is similarly vul-nerable to reconsideration in Hght of twenty-first centurypractices. Of course, textbooks are not the only source ofadvertising definitions. Dictionaries are another source.As mentioned previously, even the Federal Trade Com-mission (FTC) has formulated its own working definition.Several are listed in Table 3, along with three definitionspreviously developed through the AMA

The AMA has a long history of developing defini-tions of marketing terminology, extending back to1931 (Alexander 1960). A close look at the AMA'searly effort to define advertising, refiected in the 1960version, reveals the likely genesis of today's commontextbook definition. That wording first appeared in theJoumal of Marketing (Committee Reports 1948), andsome textbooks later cited that report as their source(e.g., Cohen 1972; Jugenheimer and White 1980;Kaufman 1980). But the AMA's most recent versionstrays from that approach. Some dictionaries use word-ing similar to the AMA's (e.g., Rosenberg 1995), whereasothers diverge significantly (e.g., Pearsall and Trumble1996). The FTC, in contrast, uses an entirely differentconception (Public Citizen v. FTC 1989).

Siniilar to the textbook approaches, most of the defini-tions retain one or more elements that deserve reexamina-tion in light of contemporary practices. Even if an entirelynew conception of advertisingis unjustified, there remains

the question as to which is best. Yet determining the mostappropriate bovmdaries of advertising is an onerous task,for there exists no established, systematic method for de-veloping such definitions.

In Search of a MethodFinding the best definition is not an empirical exer-

cise. Experiments cannot reveal which is "truth," andsurvey results vary widely, depending on who is sur-veyed (e.g., creatives, account executives, outdoor spe-cialists, consumers).

When Sir James A.H. Murray led development ofthe Oxford English Dictionary (OED), in the late1800s, he had volunteers collect a variety of quota-tions using a particular word, taken from literature,and then allowed one or more editors to derive thedefinition from the word's use in those quotations(Winchester 1998). That approach is still used in dic-tionary development today. The result tends to relyon the judgment of one or, at most, a few authors.This means the definition of "advertising" in mostdictionaries probably is crafted by professional lexi-cographers rather than by a person knowledgeableabout advertising. Their definitions normally drawfrom common usage of the word, not technical orprecision use, and refiect consumers' rather than pro-fessionals' viewpoints. In addition, the OED approachdefines a word by its normative use rather than byhow it should be defined, the purpose of the currentstudy. The OED method, though well-established, isnot a good fit for the present purpose.

Unlike general dictionaries, most definitions inTables 1 and 3 were crafted by authors with advertis-ing-related expertise. They undoubtedly looked to pre-existing definitions when developing their own, but

Summer 2002 67

Table 3Otiier Definitions of Advertising

American Marketing Association

Bennett (1995)

Bennett (1988)

Alexander (1960)

Dictionaries

The placement of announcements and persuasive messages in time orspace purchased in any of the mass media by business firms, nonprofitorganizations, government agencies, and individuals who seek to informand/or persuade members of a particular target market or audienceabout their products, services, organizations, or ideas.Paid, nonpersonal communication through various media by businessfirms, nonprofit organizations, and individuals who are in some wayidentified in the advertising message and who hope to inform and/orpersuade members of a particular audience; include communication ofproducts, services, institutions, and ideas.Any paid form of non-personal presentation and promotion of ideas,goods, or services by an identified sponsor.

Graham (1952)

Pearsall and Trumble (1996)

Rosenberg (1995)

Toffler and Imber (1994)

Urdang(1992)

Webster's College Dictionary (1997)

Other

The nonpersonal communication of a sales message to actual orpotential purchasers by a person or organization selling a product orservice, delivered through a paid medium for the purpose of influencingthe buying behavior of those purchasers.The practice of influencing people through public media in order to promotesales of products and services or promote political or other messages.A paid-for nonpersonal presentation or promotion of goods, services,and/or ideas. It is usually paid for by an identifiable sponsor.Paid form of a nonpersonal message communicated through the variousmedia by industry, business firms, nonprofit organizations, or individuals.Advertising is persuasive and informational and is designed to influencethe purchasing behavior and/or thought patterns of the audience.Advertising is a marketing tool and may be used in combination withother marketing tools, such as sales promotions, personal selling tactics,or publicity.A marketing process which uses advertisements directed to prospects asa means of meeting marketing objectives: as a marketing tool,advertising is uniquely able to reliably and quickly deliver consistentmessages, efficiently.The act or practice of offering goods or services to the public throughannouncements in the media.

Public Citizen v. FTC (1989) Advertising involves any action to "call public attention to [a product]...so as to arouse a desire to buy."

again, most were crafted by sole authors. Even theAMA, which typically appoints committees to developits dictionaries, relegates groups of words to eachcommittee member. This method suffers from the factthat each definition represents a single perspective.

Articles in the marketing literature that attempt todefine terms often rely on the authors' own opinions,too. New definitions for "direct marketing" were pro-posed by Bauer and Miglautsch (1992) and Murrowand Hyman (1994). Both definitions resulted from

68 The Journal of Advertising

the authors' opinions of, and biases regarding, whatshould and should not constitute a description of thefield. As a result, the Bauer and Miglautsch proposalwas sharply criticized as far too neirrow (Schofield 1995).The inherent bias in any sole-authored approach makesit a target for criticism. Even Noah Webster, creator ofWebster's Dictionary, has been highly criticized for taint-ing his dictionary with definitions colored by his con-servative Christian orientation (Green 1996).

A better solution would be to tap the expertise ofvarious advertising and marketing experts. A simplesurvey has Umitations, however, because respondentshave no opportunity to leam of one another's opin-ions and refiect on counterarguments. Methods thatwould bring experts together in a focus group or brain-storming fashion could resolve that problem, but theyare expensive and pose potentially serious schedul-ing difficulties, especially when dealing with highlyesteemed experts who have many demands on theirtime. Yet another weakness of this "group-think" pro-cess is the lack of anonymity. One person's respect ordislike of another can cause him or her to alter aresponse, rather than provide his or her true opinion.It also can result in collusion among participants.

Finding a method that overcomes these deficiencies wasa major obstacle. The Internet, in addition to being theimpetus behind this reexamination of advertising's defini-tion, proved to be part of the answer to this dilemma.

A IModified Delphi ]VIethodThe Delphi Method was developed about 40 years ago at

the Rand Corporation to forecast financial and technologi-cal trends (Buckley 1995; Dalkey and Helmer 1963). Thismethod brings together a group of experts, via multi-wavesurvey, with the goal of reaching a consensus. The method'sname was taken fix)m the Oracle of Delphi in Greek my-thology, who could predict future events. The typical Delphistudy involves recruiting participants, sending them aquestionnaire, analyzingresults, sending a foHow-up ques-tionnaire, analyzing those results, and sending a finalquestionnaire. Three waves are common (Jain 1985-86).Historically, these studies have been conducted by mail.

A modified version^we chose to call the Online DelphiData-collection (ODD) methoddiffers from the nor-mal Delphi procedure in two ways. It adapts the methodto the process of definition development, and it uses theInternet as the medium of information exchange.

The ExpertsA panel of true experts was needed, representing some

diversity of perspective. Becavise there was no objectively

ideal means of creating this panel, we decided to invite awide selection of highly regarded experts. It was estab-lished a priori that, to keep the process manageable, thepanel should be composed of 10-20 members.

A total of 23 invitations was mailed to well-knownagency executives, presidents of professional organi-zations, government regulators, and respected aca-demics. Attempts were made to include as broad arange of perspectives as possible, so those invitedrepresented not only the agency perspective, but alsothe client perspective and those specializing in directmarketing, e-commerce, out-of-home media, promo-tional products, and, to gain a wider perspective, mar-keting. Even those coming from an agency backgroundrepresented a variety of specialities (e.g., creative,management), as well as both large and small agen-cies. The extent of diversity was limited only by therestricted panel size.

Sixteen of those invited agreed to participate. Thosenot included either failed to respond to the invitationor indicated their time was too limited to participate.One expressed a willingness to be included but re-fused to use e-mail, requiring a significant deviationfrom the adopted research method, so she was notincluded. Before the first wave of data was collected,two panelists dropped out because of time commit-ments. In the end, the panel was composed of 14 mem-bers, listed in Table 4. Each offered significantqualifications as true experts in advertising and/ormarketing. In the midst of the study, 1 of the 14 panel-ists dropped out, for a total attrition rate of just 7%.

The ProcedureThe study began in December 1999, with the final

responses received in May 2000. Each panelist wasassigned a respondent number, to ensure anonymity,and all reference to individual participants used thesenumbers. In total, three brief questionnaires weresent to panelists, all via e-mail. In most cases, theyresponded by e-mail, with a few by fax.

Following the first wave, a brief summary of theresponses was prepared, and a private Web page listedall verbatim responses identified only by respondentnumbers. Panelists then received a second question-naire, the summary, and a Web link to the verbatims.This allowed them to view the opinions of all panel-ists. Responses from that questionnaire were pre-pared in a similar manner, and a third questionnairewas sent with links to both a summary and verbatimsfrom the second wave. On receiving all the final re-sponses, a follow-up e-mail disclosed the identities oftheir fellow participants.

Summer 2002

Name Qualifications

Tabie 4Deiphi Panelists

69

Arnold M. Barban

David Bell

Les Carlson

Ranee Crain

Jeff Goodby

John Leckenby

Richard A. LeFurgy

Thomas W. Leigh

Charles S. Madden

Claude R. Martin, Jr.

Former president of the American Academy of Advertising, former chairman of theAdvertising and Public Relations Department at the University of Alabama, former headof the Department of Advertising at the University of Illinois, and author of many booksand articles on topics of marketing communication.Chairman and CEO of True North Communications, chairman of the AdvertisingEducational Foundation, former CEO of Bozell Worldwide, recent past chairman ofAmerican Association of Advertising Agencies, and twice Chairman of the AdvertisingFederation.Marketing professor at Clemson University, has served as member of the editorial boardsof the Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, the Journal of Consumer Affairs, the Journalof Consumer and Marketing Research, the Journal of Marketing Education, the Journal ofAdvertising, the Journal of Business Research, the Journal of Marketing Theory andPractice, and the Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising. He is formereditor of the Journal of Advertising and author of one book and numerous articles ontopics of marketing communication.President and editor-in-chief of Advertising Age magazine, as well as Crain's ChicagoBusiness, Crain's New York Business, and Electronic Media.Principal and creative director for Goodby Silverstein and Partners, San Francisco, andAdweeks Creative Director of the Year in 1990,1992, and 1994.Advertising professor and Everett D. Collier Centennial Chair in Communication, formerpresident of the American Academy of Advertising, former chairman of the AdvertisingDepartment at The University of Texas, author of many books and articles on topics ofmarketing communication, and coeditorof the Journal of Interactive Advertising.Chairman of the Internet Advertising Bureau and first chairman of the FAST SteeringCommittee, director of an interactive advertising agency, and a general partner atWaldenVC, a venture capital fund that focuses on Internet advertising, ecommerce,entertainment, and education. He also has served as senior vice president of advertisingat ESPN/ABC News Internet Ventures, formerly was executive vice president and seniorpartner of N.W. Ayer & Partners in New York, and currently is on the boards of theAdvertising Research Foundation and the Advertising Educational Foundation.Emily H. and Charles M. Tanner, Jr. Chair and associate professor of Marketing at theUniversity of Georgia, former president of the American Marketing Association'sAcademic Council, and member of the editorial boards of the Journal of Marketing, theJournal of Advertising, the Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, the MarketingEducation Review, the Journai of Service Marketing, the Competitive Intelligence Review,and the Journal of Personal Selling and Sales ManagementVice president of Baylor University, member of the editorial boards of the Journal ofEmpiricai Generalisations in Marketing Science and the Journal of Marketing Education,member of the World Marketing Association Council, as well as former chairman of theboard of the American Marketing Association and past president of the SouthernMarketing Association.Isadore and Leon Winkelman Professor of Retail Marketing at the University of Michigan,coeditor of the Journai of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, member of theeditorial review boards of the Journal of Advertising and the European Journal ofInnovation Management, and former member of the National Advertising Review Board.

(continued)

70

Name Qualifications

Table 4 (continued^Delphi Panelists

The Journal of Advertising

C. Lee Peeler

Ivan Preston

Wallace S. Snyder

Roscoe B. Starek

Associate director for Advertising Practices of the Bureau of Consumer Protection,Federal Trade Commission.Former president of the American Academy of Advertising, professor emeritus of theUniversity of Wisconsin School of Journalism and Mass Communication, author of manybooks and articles on topics of marketing communication.President and CEO of the American Advertising Federation and former attorney for theFederal Trade Commission.Senior vice president of the Direct Marketing Association and former Commissioner ofthe Federal Trade Commission.

The First WaveThe Delphi method produces dissent, so not all view-

points of individual panel members are refiected inthe final outcome. Although the goal is "consensus,"Buckley (1995) notes, "Where no agreement developsthe Delphi still helps clarify the issue, crystallize thereasoning process, and increase the accuracy of par-ticipants' understanding of the position of others."There was, indeed, substantial disagreement regard-ing some issues. Because this study generated a volu-minous amount of qualitative data, it is impossible tofully represent every panelist's position. For any resultpresented, a panelist may strongly disagree. Conse-quently, we attempt to shield panelists' identities re-garding specific quotes, except when express permissionwas granted or panelists requested they be named. Asone panel member protested, "No don't quote me byname. No telling what kind of stupid things I've said!"

The Need for a New Definition. To ascertain whetherthey felt a new definition was needed, panelists firstwere provided the Current Definition ("Advertisingisa paid nonpersonal communication from an identi-fied sponsor, using mass media to persuade or infiu-ence an audience") and asked:

1. Is this definition adequate, or does it need tobe changed?

2. If changes are needed, which attributes ofthe definition should remain in the new defi-nition, and why? By attribute we mean massmediated, paid, etc.

3. Which attributes should be removed fromthe definition, and why?

4. Please make a list of everything (you canthink of) that IS advertising. For example,should sales promotions, shelf screamers,race car sponsorships, etc., be included?

5. Please make a list of everything you feelshould NOT be considered advertising.

There was virtual unanimity that change is needed,though a couple of responses would qualify more as"maybe." Others were more definite. One remarked,"Not adequate. Needs to be changed. This is just oneform of advertising." Another said, "Parts of the defi-nition are adequate, yet other aspects should bechanged." And one pointed out it is difficult, andperhaps impossible, to reduce a definition of such acomplex concept to a single sentence. He suggestedthe best approach might be to include a series offootnote qualifications explaining each element'smeaning and exceptions.

From that very first question, panelists began of-fering alternative definitions of their own invention.Throughout the study, five were submitted, shown inTable 5. This illustrates the diversity of thinking andserves as some evidence of panelists' involvement inthe process. Some of these present modest changes tothe Current Definition, whereas others wholly sup-plant it. As might be anticipated, given the panel'sbreadth, responses to the second and third questionsvaried greatly. Their opinions about each attributeare discussed next.

Paid. Panelists generally felt this element must beretained. One panel member said, "[PJaid ... and com-munication may be the only sacred cows." This wasfar from clear-cut, however. One member opined,"What about Ad Council and other PSAs, as well as'free' offers made by media to attract future busi-ness?" Overall, though, the panel seemed to accept"paid" as needed to set advertising apart from otherforms of communication, particularly public relations.Although public relations is not cost-free for a com-pany, the media vehicle is not being paid. Ivan Prestonfelt this term helps separate ads that originate out-

Summer 2002 71

Table 5Panelists' Proposed Definitions

1 Advertising is an event, image, or perception that affects the way we feel about a particular product.Sometimes advertising is planned; sometimes it is inadvertent, and happens serendipitously. Sometimesit is paid for; sometimes it is not. Sometimes it happens in a mass market way; sometimes it happensquite personally and individually. Always, it changes or tries to change the perceptions of the beholder.

2 Advertising consists of messages in the media, created and paid for by identified sources outside themedia, to persuade recipients to buy goods and services or to carry out any other desired actions. (Note:this definition included several qualifying footnotes.)

3 Advertising is informative or persuasive impersonal communication that is sponsored and purchased byan identifiable entity for purposes of influencing the cognitions, attitudes, or behaviors of an individual or atarget audience.

4 Advertising is communication from a known or unknown sponsor to persuade or influence an audience.5 Advertising is a paid nonpersonal communication from an identified sponsor to persuade or influence an

audience.

side the vehicle from news and entertainment gener-ated by people within the media vehicle. This sug-gests, of course, that a vehicle's promotions in its ownpublication, such as a television network's promotionof upcoming shows, would not constitute "advertis-ing." And this time or space generally is "paid" byforfeit of the income that would be obtained fromoutside advertisers.

As with any definition, the problem is that the wordscomposing it must likewise be well defined. The Delphipanel seemed most comfortable with a broad definitionof "paid." Several participants mentioned barter as theequivalent of payment. The inclusion of "paid" sparkedenough discussion, though, that a follow-up questionwas asked in a later round to clarify these issues.

Nonpersonal. There was nearly universal agree-ment that this attribute is dispensable. This opinionwas driven, in part, by Internet methods and recenttrends toward more "one-to-one" marketing. One pan-elist nominated this term for deletion, "since it ismerely a refiection of where we've been in the pastand doesn't leave room for the future, where masscustomization of messages based on media contextand user history drives a more personalized mes-sage." Another said, "'Nonpersonal' should be re-moved because advertising can be very effective bybeing intensely personal."

In contrast, one panelist felt the term "nonpersonal"referred not to a personalized message, but rather tophysical proximity between speaker and consumer,as in personal selling. This would suggest narrowlytargeted messages, tailored to the personal wantsand needs of a consumer, could still be called"nonpersonal." However, this same panelist opted tostrike "nonpersonal" as redundant, arguing "media"

connotes the lack of interpersonal contact. A couple ofmembers argued for retention of "nonpersonal." They feltall advertising, even if narrowly tailored, is part of aneffort to reach a mass audience and cannot be construed as"personal," but this clearly was a minority view.

Identified Sponsor. In the first round, this termwas subject to very little agreement. This led to morediscussion in the second round.

Mass Media. This element was recommended fordeletion. It wasn't the "media" part that raised ques-tions, but rather the "mass" aspect. Some paneliststhought it redundant, with "media" implying a mes-sage that reaches multiple recipients. But again, theprincipal concern was advertising that narrowly tar-gets, such as direct mail and e-mail. One commentcaptures both these sentiments:

Note I have not used the term "mass media" be-cause it's redundant. Also, dropping the word"mass" enables us to avoid implying that the mes-sages are mass messages when it's long since be-come easy to personalize them, as with the directmail that says "Dear Mr. Richards." I don't thinkthe definition of advertising is the place to makethat point, but I just want to avoid emphasizingthe idea of "mass" at a time wben messages andthe media are getting less massy.

The term "mass" itself is difficult to define. As oneparticipant noted, it seems to exclude small circula-tion/reach vehicles. It is not clear how large an audi-ence is needed to meet that criterion. The panel'ssense was that this word is vague and superfiuous."Media," though, seemed acceptable to all.

Persuade or Influence. "Persuade" was preferredover "infiuence." Using both was deemed unneces-sary. One member offered, "[P]erhaps the word 'per-

72 The Journal of Advertising

suade' alone is adequate, but if multiple words areused, I'd suggest adding 'inform' which is the aim ofmuch advertising; my preference at this stage of thisproject would be 'inform and persuade' because I feel'persuade' includes 'infiuence.'" As a counterpoint,though, another participant remarked, "Informingsomeone can be sufficient to persuade them to engagein some type of desired response." His example wasan announcement listing church service times, whichmight be sufficient to persuade someone to attend.Other panelists saw no need to add "inform." One ofthese experts preferred the original wording, and an-other questioned whether either is needed in this eraof relationship building, but most opted for "persuade"as the best choice. At the same time, some added thata target of that persuasion, in the form of a call toaction, should be included.

Relationship with Other Marketing Communica-tions. Round 1 raised some areas of broad agreement,as well as divergent opinions. But it is important toremember that Delphi studies are designed not onlyas an endgame, but also to identify disagreement andclarify the issues. Although panelists agreed the Cur-rent Definition is inadequate, there were stark differ-ences in their answers to questions 4 and 5 aboutwhat is and is not advertising. Practitioners and aca-demics took very different views, with the formermaking comments like, "Everything that in any waypromotes the brand name is advertising, includingthe compan/s stock S3mibol," and "[I]t is rather diffi-cult to tell the differences between advertising andart." In contrast, the academics tended to itemize whatthey believed fell inside or outside advertising, placingmost traditional media. Web promotions, point of pur-chase, and some sponsorships (e.g., race cars) insidethe definition, but distinguishing categories such assales promotion, direct marketing, and public relations as"not advertising." And some carefiil distinctions weredrawn; for example, "Pure sponsorship as opposed to ad-vertising of that sponsorship" is not advertising.

In Round 2, it was necessary to clarify how far thepanel was willing to go in redefining advertising. Ob-viously, there was a large gap in viewpoints. The areaof direct marketing seemed especially troublesome,with some panelists subsuming it into advertisingand others seeing it as distinct.

The Second WaveRound 2 included the following questions:1. Is personalized e-mail, designed to sell a prod-

uct or service, a form of advertising or is it

direct marketing? What is the difference be-tween advertising and direct marketing?

2. If the source, sponsor, or brand is not identi-fied, can it be advertising? Why?

3. Under what circumstances do logos qualifyas advertising? When they aren't advertis-ing, what are they? Public Relations?

4. Does packaging ever qualify as advertising?When?

5. The previous definition had five main ele-ments: paid, nonpersonal, identified sponsor,mass media, and persuade or infiuence. Youeliminated some elements, and agreed thatadvertising is "paid" and "persuades." But,clearly, paid persuasive communication wouldinclude more than just advertising (e.g., manybooks). What other elements, if any, should beincluded in a definition of advertising?

Direct Marketing. The first question caused someconsternation on the panel. There emerged some in-teresting conceptions of direct marketing and its re-lationship with advertising, especially for Web-basedefforts. Three views of direct marketing emerged fromthe responses. One saw direct marketing as a me-dium and advertising as the message. This view wastypified by the remark, "Direct marketing is a deliv-ery vehicle. Advertising is what is delivered." A sec-ond group saw direct marketing as a separate, butsomewhat overlapping, category, as represented by,"A persuasive effort may be both of them at once, butit also may be either one of them without the other."A third school of thought saw the two on a path ofconvergence, making it pointless to distinguish be-tween them, such as, "Sorry to muddy the waters, butI see very little difference between advertising anddirect marketing." Most panelists believed personal-ized e-mail was both direct marketing and advertising.One remarked, "Online advertising and personalizedemail both provide a feedback mechanism, so they areboth advertising and direct marketing," and anothersaid, "Email done for commercial purposes is like directmail, just through a different medium."

Obviously, online interactivity is causing some re-consideration of the lines between marketing com-munication categories. The second question in thisround also was somewhat troublesome to the panel.In the first round there was little agreement regard-ing "identified sponsor," so it was further addressedin Round 2.

Identified Sponsor. Some panel members were em-phatic that this was a crucial component. Commentsincluded, "I believe the sponsor must be identified for it

Summer 2002 73

to be advertising. Otherwise, it would be some form ofpublic relations activity," and "Since advertising is paidcommunication, the identification of the source is im-perative." More than one panelist argued advertising'spersuasive purpose cannot be realized unless thesponsor's identity is revealed to the audience.

Others disagreed it should be kept. For example:I think tbat the "known source" component haslong since been irrelevant. I tbink tbe intendedeffect is more important tban tbe source effect.Case in point - No, I really meant those command-ments - God. I am pretty sure tbat God didn'tplace those ads.

Someone paid for the billboards, of course, but thesponsor's identity never was disclosed to the audi-ence. News reports revealed the ads were financed bysomeone who desired anonymity (Trausch 1999). Byrequiring an "identified sponsor," such billboards can-not be called advertising.

Teaser ads, designed to grab attention and gener-ate curiosity by omitting the product or manufac-turer name, caused much discussion. In general,though, panehsts agreed "a teaser ad is always fol-lowed eventually, even if after several intervening steps,by the final form that does make the identification."Two of them described a lack of sponsor identificationas "a tactic of the overall campaign that will identifythe sponsor at a later point in time." Therefore, whendefining a teaser as an advertisement, the whole cam-paign had to be considered, not just the single ad.

A couple of panelists agreed with the need to dis-close identity but had trouble with the word "spon-sor." One recommended substituting "source" for"sponsor" as a broader and more fiexible term, en-compassing more than just the person or companyfinancing the ad.

The first wave found disagreement regarding logosand product packaging. To clarify, the second wavespecifically asked whether these two promotional toolsare advertising.

Logos and Packaging. Logos, they decided, can beadvertising. Most respondents felt these should beconsidered advertising only when they help deliver amessage to the consumer, are an integral part of amessage, or tap into consumers' memory to help themrecall a message, thereby serving the persuasive pur-pose of advertising. A couple pointed out that a logoserves no persuasive purpose when standing alone ifconsumers do not recognize the brand. Explained onepanelist, "There could be a symbol that five yearsfrom now will be the most famous logo in the country,but if it appeared today for the first time, all alone, it

would mean nothing re the item with which it willlater be associated." At the same time, two Delphiparticipants emphatically declared logos are alwaysadvertising, and a third agreed they are virtuallyalways advertising. Jeff Goodby argued, "Logos andpackaging are ALWAYS advertising, and people thatdon't treat them as such pay the price. They saythings about you and your product that go far beyondthe explicit." One panel member felt more comfort-able placing logos into an entirely distinct category.

Packaging, on the whole, was deemed an ad medium.Again, a few thought packagingeven for genericbrandsalways is a form of advertising, whereas twoconsidered it something separate from advertising.Most, however, said that so long as it carries a strategicmessage, such as performance claims, packaging is justanother vehicle for delivering that message.

Paid Persuasive Communication. The final pointaddressed in Round 2 was to clarify the use of "paid"and "persuade" in the final definition. From Round 1,there were some issues raised surrounding these twowords, though overall there was agreement that bothwere necessary components of the definition. Wesought to clarify what elements of paid persuasivecommunication were advertising and what set adver-tising apart from other paid persuasive communica-tion. As a whole, the panel felt that the one thingseparating advertising from other paid communica-tions was the "call to action." This philosophy isevident in two statements: "By persuasion we need tomean a call to action to the consumer to buy theproduct or service," and "A book isn't advertising, asit's generally paid for by the user. It may persuade,but the goal is generally not to motivate a purchase."So the panel suggested a call to action is needed, butdefined action broadly, as "...any movement, psycho-logical or behavioral, may be the target motivation foran ad." Ads, they felt, might seek to do something otherthan just move consiuners to purchase, such as encour-aging them to change their attitude toward a brand.

Outcome. The first two waves of the study helpedclarify panelists' views and identify what they consid-ered strengths and weaknesses of the Current Defini-tion. Through this process, some tentative points ofconsensus were reached from which to propose a newand improved definition. The third and final wave ofthe study offered an opportunity to test that proposal.

The Third Wave: A Proposed DefinitionResponses from the first two waves were evaluated

and synthesized. Although there was no true consen-

74 The Journal of Advertisingsus, we derived the following definition from the ma-jority opinions described previously:

Advertising is a paid, mediated form of communicationfrom an identifiable source, designed to persuade thereceiver to take some action, now or in the future.

This definition retains "paid" and "persuade," whichpanelists considered important. It substitutes "iden-tifiable" for "identified," to accommodate the problemof teaser ads, and uses "source" instead of "sponsor,"while omitting the unnecessary word "infiuence.""Mass media" is replaced by "mediated," and"nonpersonal" is dropped. Finally, a broad call to ac-tion is added. This seemed to capture the experts'points of agreement, with the effect of broadening thedefinition to encompass some activities that did notfit neatly under the previous version but still draw-ing some clear boundaries around activities they didnot consider advertising. This new definition was pre-sented to the panel along with questions that in-cluded the following:

1. Is the above definition one you can live with?Why or why not?

2. As a group, you felt we should keep the word"paid" in the definition. Is it really impor-tant the communication be paid, or is "paid"just a way of being sure the message wasINTENDED by the advertiser? Is "intent" abetter choice of words? Or is it an issue ofkeeping the communication under theadvertiser's CONTROL?

Almost everyone found this definition acceptable. Forexample, "I believe this is fine since it includes all thecurrent conceptions of the nature of advertising." Onlytwo panelists took issue with it as a whole. One contin-ued to feel so complex a concept could not adequatelybe captured in a single sentence, whereas the othersuggested deleting everj^hing except, "Advertising is acommunication designed to persuade the receiver totake some action, now or in the future."

A call to action seemed unnecessary to some panel-ists. However, as long as it was broadly inclusive,"any take away, cognitive, affective or conative, thatmoves a potential customer toward an action or be-havior relevant to the advertiser," most seemed com-fortable keeping this element.

"Paid" was seen by some as a substitute for adver-tiser "intent" and by others as meaning the communi-cation remains under the advertiser's "control." Somefelt "paid" was the necessary choice. One Delphi mem-ber put it succinctly, "It is important to keep paid inthe definition to exclude public relations." Anothersaid, "Paid is critical to me." Jeff Goodby countered:

I think "paid" is entirely arbitrary. There is a lotof advertising that isn't paid. Think about howmany times the same people who want tbis in tbedefinition have said: "Tbe best advertising is wordof moutb" (and tbus not paid for). It's dumb tolimit it this way.

In the end, though, there was substantial agreementthat "paid" probably was the best choice of words.

There was one notable problem with the proposeddefinition: the word "mediated." It was not a prob-lem with the concept but with the word itself. Oneremarked, "I don't like the word 'mediate' becausenobody will know what it means." As if to substanti-ate that point, another said, "[MJediate isn't a realword is it?" That sentiment was echoed by others.Although "mediated" was problematic, alternate op-tions seem equally confusing. The phrase "conveyedthrough media" is one possibility, but the term "media"is commonly used to identify journalists, so this phrasemight imply traditional media such as television andnewspaper to the exclusion of digital media, promo-tional products, and so forth. "Through a medium"may connote something more mystical. No other wordingseems entirely satisfactory. Consequently, we offer thefollowing footnote to accompany that new definition:

"Mediated" conunimication is that which is conveyedto an audience through print, electronics, or anymethod other than direct person-to-person contact.

With that explanation, this definition seems to repre-sent a consensus of opinion among most of these ex-perts. Les Carlson refiects, 'The end result is a definitionthat allows considerable conceptual freedom."

ConclusionAlthough focused on examining the need for a new

definition of advertising and the development of sucha new definition, this study was designed to open adialogue among the various advertising communi-ties. Initially, this dialogue began by identifying ar-eas of agreement and disagreement about the existingdefinition, as represented by a summary definition.This initial dialogue would then form the basis forfuture discussion. Some observers may see the newdefinition as very similar to the Current Definition,and in part, this similarity may result from the nego-tiated nature of the final product. Yet, as was statedpreviously, the purpose of a Delphi study is not onlyto achieve consensus, but also to identify areas ofdisagreement. Thus, consensus was achieved in someareas and not in others.

Panelists expressed extremely divergent opinions,with some envisioning a need for great change. One

Summer 2002 75

opined, for example, "Why should educators and prac-titioners consider advertising to be something lessthan consumers who see practically all commercialcommunication as falling under the label of'advertis-ing.'" Yet another panelist took virtually the oppositeposition: "I realize that there is an existing invest-ment in the word 'advertising,' but isn't tr)dng toremake the definition a bit like redefining 'fire' tomean all later discovered forms of energy?" Overall,there was general agreement on the need for a redefi-nition but not full agreement on what form the newdefinition should take.

The final definition presented here is the balancestruck by the panel. Throughout the process it wasclear that, though these experts agreed change wasneeded, they struggled to find a better way of articu-lating each requirement without merely substitutingone set of deficiencies for another. There is httle doubt,however, that the proposed definition is less narrowthan the previous version. One respondent concluded,"This seems to be a significant improvement over theinitial definition," primarily because of that broad-ened nature. The most notable changes are the re-moval of "nonpersonal" and "mass," which widened itto embrace the Internet. Other modifications, likechanging "sponsor" to "source," also somewhat broadenthe definition. Although this represents a directionthat most panelists found acceptable, what the newdefinition does not refiect are the disagreementswithin the group.

Indeed, one strength of this definition not presentin its predecessor is simply that the logic behind theselection of each element is more evident because thevarious arguments are presented here. Through analy-sis of panelists' disagreements, it becomes clear thereare distinctions not just between academic and prac-titioner views of advertising, but also among the viewsof various practitioners. This study captures a dia-logue among a diverse group of industry leaders aboutthe fundamental elements of advertising. Such a dia-logue is rare and offers a unique insight into how thevarious ad practitioners view their field. The panel'srevision is not being offered as a fait accompli, butrather as a foil for further thought. The definitionresults from the minds of 14 experts rather than a sin^eperspective, which should afford some degree of improve-ment over the Current Definition. It also appears to broadenadvertising's scope to include new technologies, making itat least seem more contemporary.

The implication of the panelists' disagreements issimple: We cannot expect consumers to understandwhat is or is not advertising when the experts areunable to agree. If this field is to mature and ad-

vance, we need a better grasp of where it begins andends. The implications of this new definition dependon its acceptance and use. It could be used as a plat-form for discussion, or it could serve as a uniformdefinition. At present, there is no standard definitionof advertising used even in advertising textbooks.This study offers at least a temporary standard, pend-ing further discussion and improvement. Starting ata common point is essential for shared understand-ing and the development of future definitions of ad-vertising, as well as for definitions of related concepts.

This dialogue and the resulting definition also openthe door to further discussion of the scope of advertis-ing and its relationships with closely related conceptssuch as direct marketing, sales promotion, and inte-grated marketing communication. The boundariesseparating these areas are no longer clear, if theyever were. Technologies have led to convergence oftraditional media and promotional methods, puttingold definitions up for review. As a discipline, the im-pact of this convergence on what is and is not adver-tising has not been fully debated. Yet advertising is aword ingrained in our lexicon and, as such, shouldconvey a consistent meaning, at least among adver-tising professionals and students of advertising.

LimitationsAs with any research project, this work has limita-

tions. A major limitation of a Delphi-type method isthat researchers frame the course of the discussion.In this case, panelists were asked to start from whatwe call here the Current Definition, rather than al-lowed to create their own conception of a definitionunbounded by that previous approach. As with focusgroups, however, researchers provide structure to thediscussion to keep it moving in a productive direc-tion. It is especially important when, as here, thediscourse is limited to just three rounds, but the finaldefinition might look very different if the panelistsbegan without the Current Definition in front of them.

The study's real value was the composition of thispanel, but this also may be one of its biggest weak-nesses. Panel members were chosen on the basis oftheir level of expertise, but there are others withsimilarly high levels of expertise not invited or whochose not to participate. Every attempt was made toimbue the panel with as diverse a representation aspossible, but there are many viewpoints that werenot represented. The confined size of the panel con-tributed to this limitation. At the same time, overlapin expertise was not wholly avoidable, so some per-spectives may have been overrepresented.

76 The Journal of Advertising

The panel format was designed to limit participants'knowledge of their fellow panelists' identities. Again,this may be both a strength and a weakness of thestudy. It was intended, in part, to limit the formationof factions or alliances among panel members. It isunknown whether any of the panelists discussed thepanel outside of the study. This approach also wasintended to reduce panelists' intimidation or admira-tion of other members, thereby causing some to temperthe expression of their true opinion. However, it ispossible this anonymity actually reduced the level ofdebate and cross-fertilization of thought on this topic.

Three rounds is a typical Delphi study design. Threerounds also seemed to work well for the present study.However, there did seem to be wearout on the part ofthe panelists toward the end of the study, as responseswere a bit slower coming back. But, the questionswere also longer and required more thought and in-put from panelists. Three rounds confines the amountof information that can be collected, which in turnconstrains the types of questions asked, but keepingpeople of such repute engaged in a research project formore than three rounds seemed unHkely. There weremany directions this study could have taken, but withthree rounds, it could not follow a very wide path.

This issue is too complex to explore every conceiv-able angle and detail with a single study, so small asample, and within the confines of a single article.Finding the best possible definition may be impos-sible, but the chance of doing so improves if addi-tional studies and open discussion follow this one.The present study should be considered only a "firstcut" at finding that elusive definition. And even withadditional study, it should be recognized that defini-tions are, by nature, dynamic. If this field shouldeventually reach a "final" definition, it may be time torevise it yet again.

ReferencesAlexander, Ralph S. and the Committee on Definitions of the Ameri-

can Marketing Association (1960), A Glossary of MarketingTerms, Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.

American HeHtage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed.(2000), New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Andreasen, Alan R. (1994), "Social Marketing: Its Definition and Do-main," Joumal of Public Policy & Marketing, 13 (1), 108-114.

Arens, William F. (1996), Contemporary Advertising, 6th ed., Chi-cago, IL: Richard D. Irwin.

Armstrong, Gary and Philip Kotler (2000), Marketing: An Intro-duction, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bauer, Connie L. and John Miglautsch (1992), "A Conceptual Definitionof Direct Marketing," JounzoZ of Direct Marketing, 6 (2), 7-17.

Bearden, WiUiam O., Thomas N. Ingram, and Raymond W. LaForge(1998), Marketing: Principles & Perspectives, 2d ed.. NewYork: Irwin McGraw-Hill.

Belch, George E. and Michael A. Belch (1998), AdveHising andPromotion: An Integrated Marketing Communications Per-spective, 4th ed.. New York: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

Bendinger, Bruce (1993), Copy Work Shop Work Book, Chicago, IL:The Copy Workshop.

Bennett, Peter D., editor (1988), Dictionary of Marketing Terms,Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.

, editor (1995), AMA Dictionary of Marketing Terms,2d ed., Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Business Books.

Bolen, William H. (1981), Advertising, New York John Wiley & Sons.Bradley, John P., Leo F. Daniels, and Thomas C. Jones (1960), The

International Dictionary of Thoughts, Chicago, IL: J. G.Ferguson Puhlishing Co.

Buckley, Chris (1995), "Delphi: A Methodology for PreferencesMore than Predictions," Library Management, 16 (7), 16-19.

Cohen, Dorothy (1972), Advertising, New York John Wiley & Sons.Committee Reports (1948), "Report of the Definitions Committee,"

Journal of Marketing, 13 (2), 202-217.Czinkota, Michael R. et al. (2000), Marketing: Best Practices,

Orlando, FL: The Dryden Press.Dalkey, Norman and Olaf Helmer (1963), "An Experimental Appli-

cation of the Delphi Method to the Use of Experts," Manage-ment Science, (April), 458-467.

Dunn, S. Watson (1969), AdveHising: Its Role in Modern Market-ing, 2d ed.. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Fitzhenry, Rohert I. (1993), The Fitzhenry & Whiteside Book ofQuotations, Canada: Fitzhenry & Whiteside Limited.

Freeman, Laurie (1999), "Internet Fundamentally Changes Defi-nition," Marketing News, (December 6), 15.

Godin, Seth (1999), Permission Marketing Turning Strangers into Friendsand Friends into Customers, New York Simon and Schuster.

Gordon, Joye C. (1997), "Interpreting Definitions of Public Rela-tions: Self-Assessment and a Symbolic Interactionism-BasedAlternative," Public Relations Review, 23 (1), 57-66.

Graham, Irvin (1952), Encyclopedia of Advertising, New York:Fairchild Publications.

Green, Jonathon (1996), Chasing the Sun: Dictionary-Makers and theDictionaries They Made, New York Henry Holt and Company.

Gronroos, Christian (1989), "Defining Marketing: A Market-OrientedApproach," European Joumal of Marketing, 23 (1), 52-61.

Gunther, John (1960), Taken at the Flood: The Story of Albert D.Lasker, New York: Harper & Brothers.

Harlow, Rex F. (1976), "Building a Public Relations Definition,"Public Relations Review, 2 (4), 34-42.

Hayakawa, S.I. (1964), Language in Thought and Action, NewYork: Harcourt, Brace & World.

Hutton, James G. (1999), "The Definition, Dimensions, and Domainof Public Relations," Public Relations Review, 25 (2), 199-214.

Jain, CL. (1985-86), "Delphi - Forecast with Experts' Opinion,"Journal of Business Forecasting, 4 (4), 22-23.

Jugenheimer, Donald W. and Gordon E. White (1980), Basic Ad-veHising, Columbus, OH: Grid Publishing.

Kaufman, Louis (1980), Essentials of AdveHising, New York:Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Kotler, Philip and Sidney Levy (1969), "Broadening the Concept ofMarketing," Journal of Marketing, 33 (January), 10-15.

Lamb, Charles W., Jr., Joseph F. Hair Jr., and Carl McDaniel(2000), Marketing, 5tb ed., Cincinnati, OH: South-WesternCollege Publishing.

Lavin, Hank (1997), "What Does 'Marketing* Mean to You?" AgencySales Magazine, 27 (2), 17.

Lichtenthal, J. David and Leland L. Beik (1984), "A History of theDefinition of Marketing," in Research in Marketing, Vol. 7,J.N. Sheth, ed., Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc., 133-163.

Summer 2002 77

Murrow, J.L. and Michael R. Hyman (1994), "Direct Marketing:Passages, Definitions, and Dejd Vu," Journal of Direct Mar-keting, 8 (3), 46-56.

O'Guinn, Thomas C, Chris T. Allen, and Richard J. Semenik (2000),AdveHising, 2d ed., Cincinnati, OH: South-Western CollegePublishing.

PearsaU, Judy and Bill Trumble (1996), The Oxford English ReferenceDictionary, 2d ed, Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Perreault, William D., Jr., and E. Jerome McCarthy (1999), BasicMarketing : A Global-Managerial Approach, 13th ed.. NewYork: McGraw-Hill Publishing.

Public Citizen v. Federal Trade Commission, 869 F.2d 1541 (D.C.Cir. 1989).

Rapp, Stan (1989), "So What Is Direct Marketing Anyway?" DirectMarketing, (July), 74.

Reinhard, Keith (2001), "Reinventing Advertising," speech pre-sented at the Groupe d'Ouchy, (June 22).

Rosenberg, Jerry M. (1995), Dictionary of Marketing & Advertis-ing, New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Rosenfield, James R. (1997), "Advertising and 'Interactive Market-ing': Why the Twain Can't Meet," Journal of Direct Market-ing, 11 (2), 2-3.

Rust, Roland T. and Richard W. Oliver (1994), "The Death ofAdvertising," Jouma/ of Advertising, 23 (4), 71.

Schofield, Albert (1995), "The Definition of Direct Marketing: ARejoinder to Bauer and Miglautsch," Journal of Direct Mar-keting, 9 (2), 32-38.

Schultz, Don E. (1995), "What Is Direct Marketing?" Journal ofDirect Marketing, 9 (2), 5-9.

Simms, Jane (1999), "Does Marketing Need a New Name?" Mar-keting, (June 3), 22.

Starch, Daniel (1923), Principles of Advertising, Chicago, IL: A. W.Shaw Company.

Toffler, Betsy-Ann and Jane Imber (1994), Dictionary of MarketingTerms, Hauppauge, NY: Barron's Educational Series.

Thompson Medical Co., 104 F.T.C. 648 (1984).Trausch, Susan (1999), "Heaven to Highway," The Boston Globe,

(March 25), A22.Urdang, Laurence (1992), The Dictionary of Advertising,

Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Business Books.Vanden Bergh, Bruce G. and Helen Katz (1999), AdveHising Prin-

ciples: Choice, Challenge, Change, Lincolnwood, IL: NTC/Contemporary Publishing Group.

Webster's College Dictionary (1997), New York: Random House.Wells, William, John Burnett, and Sandra Moriarty (1998), Adver-

tising Principles and Practices, 4th ed.. Upper Saddle River,NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Winchester, Simon (1998), The Professor and the Madman, NewYork: HarperCollins Publishers.

Zikmund, William G. and Michael d'Amico (1999), Marketing, 6thed., Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing.