Modelling the Effects of Creative Advertisements on Consumers: An Empirical Study

Abstract

Promoting analysts and experts concur that creativity is one of the fundamental components for success in advertising. In this paper, we examine consumer perceptions and build a comprehensive model of ad (advertising) creativity. We have also enlisted the determinants of creativity and have developed a scale to measure it. Research results demonstrate that divergence and relevance factors significantly influence ad creativity and divergence is the leading factor for creativity. Further, we studied the creativity practices in the sample ds and listed the best combination of creativity dimensions which can influence purchase intentions. Another objective of this research was to examine the effects of ad creativity on consumer processing variables and consumer response variables for the Television ads. Findings indicate that creative ads significantly influence consumer processing and response variables. This study provides rating scales to advertising managers to judge the creativity of ad campaigns or of a proposed ad and furthers our understanding of relationships among the key variables. It reinforces conceptual models that give ad creativity a pivotal role in the advertising world.

Keywords

Divergence Relevance Creativity Consumer Processing Variables Consumer Response Variables

Introduction

The advertising industry has seen numerous sensational moves in the most recent decade. The mobile mania has revolutionized the way we get connected and exchange information. Multi-layered media is the norm of the day now: People watching TV simultaneously surf the web to look out for actor info, text friends about the programme or post on twitter and may even be doing shopping on Flipkart. Under such situations, seeking attention of consumers using ad content is at a premium. Consumers pay attention to ads whose content is designed to amuse them. An investigative study by Thales S. Teixeira (2014) has found that ad content that is too emotional or too entertaining is not effective; the content needs to be in-between the two spots to get most extreme consideration of the buyers. Since 1990, the cost of commanding consumer attention has expanded seven to nine times in real terms. The challenge faced by today’s ad agencies is to secure advertising effectiveness. This can be done using a 2-pronge model: One way is to develop advertisements which can seek consumer attention; the other to work on changing the attitude and behaviour of the consumers towards the product/brand. One suggested way to accomplish this twin objective is to get creativity into the advertisement.

A study by Shimp (1997) equates advertising effectiveness with creativity as creative advertisements successfully differentiate themselves from other advertisements, get more customer attention, build impression, develop positive attitude about the product being advertised and break the media clutter. David and Bill, both professionals of the ad world, support the notion that creativity excellence makes the advertising effective (an ad that provokes consumers to use or purchase the product). David Ogilvy (advertising tycoon) once said that if an ad does not help in selling the product than the ad is not creative. Creative ad campaigns for a product/brand can have a direct effect on a firm’s performance, such as deals, benefits (Erickson & Jacobson, 1992), brand goodwill (Aaker, 1996; Keller, 1998) and firm value (Srinivasan & Hanssens, 2007). So, in the cluttered market place, creativity is the key element for success.

As per The Institute of Practitioners in Advertising (IPA) report, ads that receive creative awards are 11 times more efficient in delivering commercial success (Hall, 2010). This credo has been accepted by practitioners and market researchers all over the world. Advertising creativity is apparently seen in advertising textbooks (Belch & Belch, 2004), academic research (Till & Baack, 2005) and in trade publications (Advertising Age, Ad Week, Creativity). Furthermore, to recognize and encourage creativity in advertising, creative awards in advertising have been initiated for ad agencies.

As opposed to importance given to ad creativity, very few research studies have been undertaken to examine it (Zinkhan, 1993). A handful of empirical studies have been accounted for in the past literature (refer Smith & Yang, 2004) and most of the studies have investigated specific issues of creativity but have not modelled the creativity phenomenon. Research has demonstrated that ads, in any form, irritate consumers. However, some ads leave lasting impression on the minds of the consumers, even though the product that is advertised, may not be relevant to them. When exposed to an advertisement, consumers are bound to evaluate its creativity either intentionally or unintentionally and what fortifies purchasers’ enthusiasm is something that needs to be surveyed. Creative messages get more attention, but there is insufficient empirical evidence on how these ad messages affect consumer behaviour. Considering the above gaps, this research study endeavors to discover empirical responses to the accompanying key inquiries:

What are the determinants of ad creativity?

How to measure ad creativity?

What are the perceived creativity practices of the sample ads?

How ad creativity affects consumer processing and response variables?

Theoretical Background of Ad Creativity

According to Stephan Vogel, CEO of O&M Germany: ‘Nothing is more efficient than creative advertising as creative advertisements are more memorable, work with less media spending, are longer lasting and build a fan community… faster’. A comprehensive literature review on creativity in advertisements reveal that uniqueness is the most well-known element of creative ads (Stuhlfaut, 2006). Relatively unexpected and novel stimuli in the advertisement evoke better recall (Heckler & Childers, 1992; Srull, 1981;). It is also argued that creative ads enable consumers to process advertising information at a deeper level in their minds (Smith et al., 2004). Creative ads have enhanced product evaluations (Peracchio & Meyers-levy, 1994), product recall (Stewart & Furse, 2000) and have driven consumer responses (Eelen et al., 2016). Marketers today desire greater returns from marketing investments than ever before (Barnes, 2013). A study by Ang & Low (2000) has stated that creative ads enhance the purchase intent of the advertised brand. Hence, creative ads have become more imperative. The ongoing calls for research on creativity and the continued interest of executives in creativity indicate the significance of this subject.

Literature Review

Two factors have been observed in the literature to be the determinants of advertisement creativity (Daechun, 2013). The first is divergence. It can be characterized as the degree to which a promotion contains brand components that are uncommon, novel, unique, exceptional, creative, and so forth (Till & Baack, 2005). The second determinant is relevance. The idea contained in an ad should not exclusively be unique, yet should likewise incorporate something that is applicable (relevant) to the beneficiary (Smith & Yang, 2004). As creativity (like beauty) is subjective and depends on person’s preferences, it is essential to comprehend the perception of ad divergence and ad relevance from the ad viewers’ perspective. Perception of ad divergence can be understood by comparison with the consumers’ experiences while that of ad relevance can be understood by comparison with the consumers’ shopping objectives and wants.

Ad Divergence

As mentioned by both the theoretical perspectives of divergence and relevance, the prime characteristic of ad creativity is the ad divergence. To distinguish courses by which ads can accomplish divergence, spearheading research by Guilford (1967) and Torrance (1987) recognized seven markers of divergence (synthesis, fluency, elaboration, originality, flexibility, imagination and artistic value) and smeared them to ads. However, a recent and a seminal study on creativity by Reinartz & Saffert (2013) considered only five dimensions (synthesis, elaboration, originality, flexibility and artistic value) that are directly related to divergence in the advertising context. In the present study, we are empirically testing the five dimensions and estimating the impact of divergence on the creativity of the ads.

Originality: Here the focus of the ads is to be unique or to move away from the obvious. It is the pinnacle of creativity. For example: Vodafone Zoozoo Superman 3G ad. In this campaign, Vodafone introduced the new avatar of Zoozoo (brand ambassador) which resembles Superman and does a lot of super power activities. This ad campaign exceeded expectations in the originality dimension with uniqueness of the thoughts or features.

Flexibility: Here the desire of the ad is to connect the advertised product to a scope of various uses. For example: Volkswagen – Fast Lane ad. This creative ad campaign was testing whether fun can change the lazy behaviour of the people and make them act environmentally responsible. This campaign was attempting to promote its new model Polo GTI by highlighting its best qualities: fun to drive and speedy. The campaign created substantial awareness by showcasing how mundane tasks could be made more fun amidst environmental consciousness.

Elaboration: Here the ads contain unexpected details. For example: Slice Aamsutra ad from Pepsico. This campaign was a real clutter-breaker. The name Aamsutra suggests to have a sensual connotation. In this ad, the brand ambassador Katrina Kaif is in a seductive avatar and enjoys the pleasure of mango. This crusade campaign resuscitated the Slice brand in the Indian market.

Synthesis: Here irrelevant items or thoughts are mixed to make a different story line. For example: Happy Dent’s white chewing gum ad campaign showed that white teeth can be synonymous with bulbs. The ad exhibits switching off lights and switching on smile thereby establishing an incredible connection between brand and health pay-off. This ad was able to balance between functional aspect and entertainment value.

Artistic value: Here the Ads have striking visual and/or verbal elements. These ads make ideas come to life and are artistically produced. For example: Apple’s ad on iPad Air. This ad positions the tablet as a do-anything gadget which enables individuals to make anything from making motion pictures to adjusting turbines.

Most of the researchers agree that divergence is the prime determinant of ad creativity (Besemer & O’Quinn, 1986; Chandy & Tellis, 1998) and the above divergence indicators are perceived to be conceptual dimensions of divergence in an advertising context (Reinartz & Saffert, 2013). As per Till & Baack (2005) ad creativity is driven by divergence. If an ad differs from the norms, it is said to be creative. Further, Smith and Yang (2004) research study found that divergence impacts different stages of information processing and create ‘contrast effects’ with less creative ads. Researcher Ang, Lee & Leong (2007) studied the components of ad creativity (novelty, connectedness and meaningfulness) and found that these components had positive impact on responses such as brand attitude and brand recall. As per McCrae (1987) divergence can be characterized as original, flexible and different. According to Simonton (2000), divergence takes advertising into a new realm and moves beyond its previously defined limits. It provides the necessary spark to the advertisement and separate it from ordinary communication. Divergence is important in advertising as it gets consumer attention towards the communication of the advertisement because of its organic and novel content (Johnston et al., 1990). Divergence can increase processing of the advertisement by consumers (Smith et al. 2007), it can shape consumer attitudes and can enhance ad exposure (Ang & low, 2000). As creativity is embraced by originality, flexibility, elaboration, synthesis or artistic value and that the relationship between divergence and creativity is agreed by many researchers (Smith et al. 2007; Till and Baack 2005), we propose the following hypothesis:

H1: Divergence in the ads significantly influences creativity in advertisement

Ad Relevance

Another determinant of creative ads which is more prominent in literature is relevance. In addition to divergence, ads should be personally relevant and valuable to consumer (MacInnis and Jaworski, 1989). This kind of relevance is achieved when collative stimulus properties of the ad make a substantial connect to potential buyers. The relevance of ad creativity is reflected by components such as ‘relevance of ad-to-consumer, relevance of brand-to-consumer, and relevance of ad-to-brand’. In the present study, we are considering these indicators in estimating the impact of relevance on the perceived creativity of the ads.

Relevance of ad-to-consumer: Here the ad contents strike a meaningful link with potential buyers and try to make it relevant to them. The ads demonstrate situations and execution of elements that are meaningful to consumers. For example: Reebok Ad of ‘25,915 days’. This ad wants us to use the average human life of 25,915 days to honour and push our bodies to their physical limits right from the new born baby to old age. This ad creates a meaningful link to all age groups of customers thereby making the ad relevant to them.

Relevance of brand-to-consumer: Here the ads illustrate that the advertised brand is more appropriate to the potential clients. For example: Branded automobiles shown in the Golf Digest. The subscribers/readers of Golf Digest magazine are high profile people and have affinity to reputed brands. An expensive branded automobile advertised in this magazine will be more relevant to them.

Relevance of ad-to-brand: This relevance is more about ad and brand going hand in hand. However, this relevance of ad-to-brand does not directly predict customer perception of ad creativity. For example: Social media and travel brands go hand in hand. In social media like Facebook, 76 per cent of account holders share their life events and travel related content. Friends’ photos inspire travel plans. Travel brands can nudge readers to take vacation and post breath-taking images to lure customers towards their brand.

An advertisement which is divergent but not relevant is considered strange (Smith et al. 2007). Hence, an advertisement should have components relevant to customers. If the ad does not produce an outcome, the ad is said to be not creative (Sternberg & Lubart, 1999). Combination of divergence and relevance makes an ad creative. According to Amabile (1983), the ad should be appropriate, useful and valuable. Here, the appropriateness, usefulness and valuableness is referred to as relevance. Besemer and O’Quinn (1986) refer appropriateness of an ad as something that can deliver customer solutions. As per Thorson & Zhao (1997), an ad should address personal concerns or interests. High involvement brands/products justify consumer personality, status and lifestyle. When an ad exhibits external confluence (similarity with similar product) and internal confluence (similarity across executions within a campaign), the ad is said to be relevant. If an ad is not meaningful to consumers than the ad is not considered to be creative (Sasser & Koslow, 2008). While developing an ad, meaningfulness defines the purpose and structure of the ad. Hence, meaningfulness is a necessary condition for ads to be effective (Earle, 2007). Meaningfulness is stated as relevance when the ad connects itself with goals, situations or experiences (Lehnert et al. 2014). An ad should have purpose and must be connected with target consumers (West, Kover & Caruana, 2008). Relevance also means that the elements of the ad are relevant to the message conveyed (Ang, Lee & Leong, 2007). This may take the form of influencing information processing and attitude (Petty, Cacioppo & Schumann, 1983) and even brand/product recall (Richins & Bloch, 1986). As relevance is an integral element of creativity and that there is a relationship between relevance and creativity, we propose the following hypothesis:

H2: Relevance in ads significantly influences creativity in advertisement

Impact of Ad Creativity on Consumer Processing and Response Variables

Another objective of this research is to probe the effect of creative ads on consumers’ mental processing and response variables. Smith & Yang (2004) gave conceptual reasons as to why creative ads impact motivation to process the ad (creative stimuli invokes consumer desire to make sense), in-depth processing of the ad (divergent stimuli invokes in-depth processing to ensue better understanding), and ad attitude (creative strategy develops a positive feeling in the consumers and the same gets transferred to the ad). Further, they said that brand attitude and purchase intentions of consumers are sensitive to creative ads. Greenwald and Leavitt (1984) found that creative ads get more consumer attention and create brand awareness. According to Smith et al. (2007), creative ads lead to deeper information processing and induce greater motivation to process the ads. Pieters and Wedel (2004) research study examined different components of the print ads (text, pictorial and brand) to understand their unique attention effects. They found that pictorial aspect is superior when compared with other components. Creative ads can emphasize pictorial/visual aspects to seek greater attention to the advertised brand. A research study of Kover, Goldenberg and James (1995) has revealed that creativity in the ads facilitate purchase intentions. As per Till and Baack (2005) study, creativity in the ads facilitate ad and brand attitudes. Study of Zinkhan (1993) has found that creative ads can reinforce attitude towards the advertised brand and overcome perceptual barriers. Rosengren, Dahlén, and Modig (2013) have found that creative ads develop positive perception of media vehicle as well as influence consumers’ own creativity. Burroughs and Mick (2004) have found that creative ads can induce heightened level of ad processing. According to Robert et al. (2007), creative ads influence consumer processing and consumer response variables.

Though creative ads stand out uniquely in an ad clutter, the gap identified in the literature review suggests that no careful examining of the full range of consumer processing and response variables has been done for Indian TV ads. To provide new evidence about where the effects of ad creativity manifest themselves, we have collected measures of consumer processing and response variables along the lines of the widely used ad processing model of MacInnis and Jaworski (1989). The processing variables considered are: Attention allocated to the ad, enthusiasm or motivation to process the ad, and deepness/depth of ad processing. Depending on the focal interest of the consumers, the response variables considered are: Attitude towards the ad, Attitude towards the brand and purchase intentions.

Considering the above literature and discussion, the following hypothesis have been proposed:

H3: Creativity in advertising significantly influences consumers’ ad attention

H4: Creativity in advertising significantly motivates the consumers to watch the ads till the end

H5: Creativity in advertising significantly influences consumers to undergo an in-depth processing of ads

H6: Creativity in advertising significantly influences consumers to develop an attitude towards the ad

H7: Creativity in advertising significantly influences consumers to develop an attitude towards the brand

H8: Creativity in advertising significantly influences consumers’ purchase intentions

Research Methodology

The research began with a discussion on the theoretical background, defining ad creativity (El-Murad & West 2004; Smith & Yang, 2004). An analysis of the definition helped to get the determinants which influence creativity. The proposed theoretical model is analyzed using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) method, for ad divergence, ad relevance and ad creativity using SPSS 20 and AMOS 20 statistical packages. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was directed for divergence and relevance constructs to hypothesize the relations between the observed measures and the fundamental from the earlier elements, in light of learning of the theory. Items to measure divergence, relevance, creativity, processing and response variables were picked from the scales developed by Robert et al. (2007).

Pre-testing of the questionnaire was conducted on 60 student-consumers (B-school) and items that did not meet the requirements of the study were dropped. The scale items were tested for reliability measures and resulted with a Cronbach Alpha of 0.863 which is quite satisfactory to use the suggested scales. Respondents were probed to rate each question on a 5-point Likert scale, going from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’. All the values had a factor loading > 0.7. The AVE (average variance extracted), convergent validity and discriminant validity of the items for all constructs were met at reasonable levels. The AVE of all constructs varied in the range of 0.585 to 0.887. The CFA analysis confirmed that theorized model fit the observed data for all the constructs.

Under measures of divergence, only five constructs were considered instead of seven, as recommended by Werner Reinartz and Peter Saffert (2013). For measures of relevance, three constructs were considered as recommended by Robert et al. (2007). Each construct had two items. There were a total number of 34 questions to measure the various aspects of the research paper.

To provide a composite and robust Ad Creativity Model (ACM), 5 creative ads (award winners of Effie 2014 results) and 5 less creative ads (average ads from national television network – refer appendix, see Table 16 & 17) from the non-alcoholic beverages segment were selected. Non-alcoholic beverage market includes juices, carbonated beverages, ready to-drink tea and espresso, filtered water and sports drinks. Non-alcoholic beverage consumption is expected to grow at a CAGR of 5.8 per cent from 2017 to 2025 and is a major source of short supply of energy for students.

Since its inception in 1987, Effie (partner of the advertising club) has sustained itself as a benchmark for effective communication both from the client’s perspective and agency perspective. Effie awards select ads based on creativity and commercial success. Hence, five Effie awarded ads (determined by advertising experts) were chosen for the final research study under creative ad category (refer Table 17). For less creative ads, a pilot testing was done to identify the suitability of these ads for less creative category. To identify less creative ads, 15 ads were randomly picked from TV ads on YouTube and regional television channels. While selecting the ads, care was taken to ensure that ads are not repetitive and belong to non-alcoholic beverage segment. Ads covered product categories such as tea, coffee, carbonated drinks, bottled water, energy drink and juices. All the 15 ads were subjected to 14 questions pertaining to creativity. These questions were responded by 40 students. The entire exercise took almost an hour. Based on lower average mean scores on overall aspects of creativity, five ads were selected for the final study in the less creative category (refer Table 17).

In this research study, 400 student-consumers from a B-school (from Bangalore University) were approached and 380 (120 females and 260 males in the age group of 22–25) of them were finally considered for the study, after eliminating the outliers. In this research, purposive sampling method is adopted based on participant interest on creative ad concepts and knowledge about advertising campaigns. Student respondents were asked to view five ads (either creative or less creative) on their laptops/Smart phones and then fill out a structured questionnaire. On an average, the respondents took 20–30 minutes to fill the questionnaire.

Divergence Measures

One of the objectives of this research is to identify ways in which advertisements can accomplish divergence. To achieve this goal, we referred to the research studies conducted by Robert et al. (2007), Reinartz and Saffert (2013) and identified 5 dimensions directly related to ad divergence. CFA analysis was conducted to achieve twin objectives: Validity concerns of the constructs and for dimensionality check. Convergent validity proves the correlation by providing evident data that the measures of construct which are supposed to be theoretically related, are in fact related. Discriminant validity ensures that scale items of the construct do not have theoretical relationship between the measures. In this study, we have proposed 5 constructs, namely, artistic (ad contains abnormal state of stylishly engaging visuals, verbal or sound components), originality (ad components that are uncommon or amazing), synthesis (mixing or associating inconsequential articles or thoughts), flexibility (ad linking the product to different uses or ideas) and elaboration (ad contains unexpected details). These measure have been arrived at after going through the related literature. Scale items were developed for these dimensions and were pretested to check face validity and conceptual redundancy. All the values had a factor loading > 0.7 (refer Table 2). The AVE, convergent validity and discriminant validity of the items for all constructs were met at reasonable levels. The AVE varied in the range of 0.691 to 0.887 (refer Table 1). These constructs were further used in modelling the ad divergence.

Figure 1.

Source: Primary survey (using AMOS 20 statistical package).

Figure 2.

Source: Primary survey (using AMOS 20 statistical package).

Table 1.

Composite Reliability, Convergent Validity and Discriminant Validity to Validate Scales

	CR	AVE	MSV	ASV	Arti	Orig	Flex	Synt	Ela
Arti	0.881	0.788	0.242	0.112	0.888
Orig	0.940	0.887	0.242	0.137	0.492	0.942
Flex	0.817	0.691	0.171	0.119	0.325	0.413	0.831
Synt	0.899	0.817	0.170	0.102	0.233	0.290	0.412	0.904
Ela	0.876	0.780	0.102	0.057	0.217	0.222	0.169	0.319	0.883

Source: Primary survey (computed using Stats package from Gaskin {2012}).

Note: AVE: average variance extracted; MSV: maximum shared variance; ASV: average shared variance. Composite reliability (CR) > 0.7 (composite reliability is met), AVE > 0.5 (convergent validity is met), MSV and ASV < AVE (discriminant validity is met).

Table 2.

Scale items and factor loadings

Sl No.	Construct	Items	Factor Loadings
1	Originality	The ad was not traditional	0.94
2		The ad broke away from established or orderly thinking?	0.95
3	Flexibility	The ad contained diverse thoughts	0.81
4		The ad contained thoughts that moved starting with one subject then onto the next.	0.86
5	Synthesis	The ad associated objects that are generally disconnected.	0.88
6		The ad united strange things	0.98
7	Elaboration	The ad contained various subtle elements.	0.88
8		The ad contained a larger number of subtle elements than anticipated.	0.88
9	Artistic	The ad was outwardly/verbally idiosyncratic	0.89
10		The ad was elegantly created	0.88

Source: Primary survey.

Relevance Measures

To get a comprehensive view of relevance dimensions, we referred to the study conducted by Robert et al. (2007) and identified 3 dimensions of relevance pertaining to ad creativity. Scale items were developed for these dimensions and were pretested to check face validity and conceptual redundancy. All the values had a factor loading > 0.7(refer Table 4). The AVE, convergent validity and discriminant validity of the items for all constructs were met at reasonable levels. The AVE varied in the range of 0.792 to 0.827 (refer Table 3). In this study, we have proposed 3 constructs, namely, relevance of ad, relevance of brand and relevance of ad to brand. These constructs were further used in modelling the ad relevance.

Table 3.

Composite Reliability, Convergent Validity and Discriminant Validity to Validate Scales

	CR	AVE	MSV	ASV	Rbr	Rad	Rab
Rbr	0.894	0.809	0.082	0.068	0.900
Rad	0.906	0.827	0.255	0.169	0.287	0.910
Rab	0.884	0.792	0.255	0.155	0.233	0.505	0.890

Source: Primary survey (computed using Stats package from Gaskin {2012}).

Note: Composite reliability (CR) > 0.7 (composite reliability is met), AVE > 0.5 (convergent validity is met), MSV and ASV < AVE (discriminant validity is met).

Table 4.

Scale items and factor loadings

Sl No.	Construct	Items	Factor Loadings
11	Relevance of Ad	The ad was important to me	0.89
12		The ad was helpful to me	0.93
13	Relevance of Brand	The product or brand was helpful to me	0.95
14		The product or brand was significant to me.	0.85
15	Relevance of Ad to brand	The product or brand was the essential concentration of the advertisement	0.86
16		The core of this ad was what it said in regards to the product or brand	0.92

Source: Primary survey.

Consumer Processing and Response Measures

We referred to the study conducted by Robert et al. (2007) and identified 3 constructs of consumer processing variables and 3 constructs of consumer response variables. Scale items were developed for these dimensions and were pretested to check face validity and conceptual redundancy. All the values had a factor loading > 0.7 (refer Table 6). The AVE, convergent validity and discriminant validity of the items for all constructs were met at reasonable levels. The AVE varied in the range of 0.585 to 0.680 (refer Table 5). In this study, the three constructs of consumer processing variables are named as ad got my attention, motivation to process the ad and depth of processing. For processing measure the constructs are named as ad attitude, brand attitude and purchase intention. These constructs were further used in modelling the overall creativity.

Figure 3.

Source: Primary survey (using AMOS 20 statistical package).

Table 5.

Scale items and factor loadings

	CR	AVE	MSV	ASV	Purint	Attent	Mot	Dept	Brattd	Adattd
Purint	0.809	0.680	0.573	0.335	0.824
Attent	0.807	0.679	0.177	0.102	0.421	0.824
Mot	0.737	0.585	0.387	0.252	0.622	0.401	0.765
Dept	0.789	0.653	0.266	0.136	0.438	0.085	0.516	0.808
Brattd	0.804	0.673	0.573	0.313	0.757	0.220	0.587	0.428	0.821
Adattd	0.801	0.668	0.417	0.202	0.589	0.341	0.318	0.174	0.646	0.818

Source: Primary survey (computed using Stats package from Gaskin {2012}).

Note: Composite reliability (CR) > 0.7 (composite reliability is met), AVE > 0.5 (convergent validity is met), MSV and ASV < AVE (discriminant validity is met).

Table 6.

Scale items and factor loadings

Sl No.	Construct	Items	Factor Loadings
17	Ad got my Attention	The ad appealed my attention	0.79
18		I invested significant time in analysing the ad message	0.92
19	Motivation to process the ad	I had a strong urge to check out the ad	0.72
20		I was exceptionally motivated to peruse the advertisement	0.81
21	Depth of processing	I related parts of the advertisement to my own particular life	0.75
22		I utilized my creative ability to past the data exhibited in the advertisement	0.86
23	Ad Attitude	General assessment of the ad: Bad/Good	0.80
24		General assessment of the ad: Unpleasant/Pleasant	0.83
25	Brand Attitude	General assessment of the advertised brand: Bad/Good	0.77
26		General assessment of the advertised brand: Unpleasant/Pleasant	0.87
27	Purchase Intention	Likelihood that you will buy the advertised product or brand: Unlikely/Likely	0.85
28		Likelihood that you will buy the advertised product or brand: Improbable/ Probable	0.80

Source: Primary survey.

Overall Creativity, Overall Divergence and Overall Measures

To get an unbiased perspective of consumers on ad creativity, we requested respondents to attempt these questions first (q29, q30), before proceeding with the rest of the questionnaire. These questions were pertaining to overall creativity measures. Further, for identification of second order constructs, we need overall creativity measures. No clue was provided on the definition of creativity and respondents had to judge creativity aspects of the ad on their own. By doing so, we are able to observe whether respondents judge ad creativity as divergence or divergence plus relevance. As second order construct was proposed for divergence and relevance, we needed global measures for divergence and relevance. For identification of second order construct, these global measures are necessary. Jarvis, MacKenzie and Podsakoff, (2003), MacKenzie, Podsakoff and Jarvis (2005), and Petter, Straub and Rai (2007) in their simulation studies have shown the need of using measures to specify the measurement model. Before performing causal analysis, convergence of the measurement model is a logical necessity (Bagozzi, 1981, p. 376). The items used to judge overall ad divergence and overall ad relevance are shown in table. Scale items were developed for these dimensions and were pretested to check face validity and conceptual redundancy. All the values had a factor loading > 0.7 (refer Table 8). The AVE, convergent validity and discriminant validity of the items for all constructs were met at reasonable levels. The AVE varied in the range of 0.696 to 0.741 (refer Table 7). These constructs were further used in modelling the overall creativity.

Figure 4.

Source: Primary survey (using AMOS 20 statistical package).

Table 7.

Composite Reliability, Convergent Validity and Discriminant Validity to Validate Scales

	CR	AVE	MSV	ASV	Orel	Odiv	Ocr
Orel	0.850	0.741	0.132	0.131	0.861
Odiv	0.821	0.696	0.527	0.330	0.364	0.835
Ocr	0.843	0.729	0.527	0.328	0.359	0.726	0.854

Source: Primary survey (computed using Stats package from Gaskin {2012}).

Note: Composite reliability (CR) > 0.7 (composite reliability is met), AVE > 0.5 (convergent validity is met), MSV and ASV < AVE (discriminant validity is met).

Table 8.

Scale items and factor loadings

Sl No.	Construct	Items	Factor Loadings
29	Overall Creativity	By and large, the ad was extremely creative	0.91
30	Overall Creativity	The ad should win an honour for creativity	0.80
31	Overall Divergence	The ad was extraordinary	0.83
32	Overall Divergence	The ad was unprecedented	0.84
33	Overall Relevance	The viewing experience of ad was relevant to me	0.79
34	Overall Relevance	The viewing experience was valuable to me	0.92

Source: Primary survey.

Analysis of the Research

Modelling for Ad Divergence

The structure consist of first and second order constructs: Originality, flexibility, synthesis, elaboration, artistic and overall divergence. Through CFA, the dimensions constituting overall divergence were tested. Based on past literature, this study proposes 5 dimension structural model of Overall Divergence (refer Figure 5). All the parameter estimates of the model have critical ratio values > 1.96 and met model requirements. The fit indices of the model are – Absolute fit: Chi-square = 110.40, p = 0.000, RMSEA = 0.058, Incremental fit: GFI = 0.953, AGFI = 0.926, CFI = 0.976, TLI = 0.968, NFI = 0.958, Parsimonious fit: CMIN/df = 2.253 (for path coefficients, refer Table 11 in Appendix). This research investigated consumer perceptions of Ad divergence and has contributed to an enhanced understanding of ‘determinants-of-divergence’ concept.

Figure 5.

Source: Primary survey (using AMOS 20 statistical packaging).

Modelling for Ad Relevance

The structure consists of first and second order constructs: Relevance of Ad, Relevance of Brand, Relevance of Ad to Brand and overall Relevance. The latent constructs are measured in the proposed SEM (refer Figure 6). All the parameter estimates of the model have critical ratio values > 1.96 and meet model requirements. The fit indices of the model are – Absolute fit: Chi-square = 55.20, p = 0.000, RMSEA = 0.074, Incremental fit: GFI = 0.964, AGFI = 0.929, CFI = 0.977, TLI = 0.965, NFI = 0.967, Parsimonious fit: CMIN/df = 3.06 (for path coefficients, refer Table 12 in Appendix). This research investigated consumer perceptions of Ad relevance and has contributed to an enhanced understanding of ‘determinants-of-relevance’ concept.

Figure 6.

Source: Primary survey (using AMOS 20 statistical packaging).

Modelling for Ad Creativity

For this analysis, scale scores of various constructs were obtained by averaging their respective items (refer Figure 7). By regressing the consumer perceptions of divergence and relevance on ad creativity, the results reveal that divergence (βeta = 0.531, t = 12.61, p < 0.001) and relevance (βeta = 0.190, t = 4.5, p < 0.001) had significant positive relationship with ad creativity (refer to Table 10). Hence, hypothesis 1 and 2 have been supported. These results indicate that when consumers judge Ad creativity, they consider both divergence and relevance factors. The variance in the consumer perception of ad creativity accounted by these two determinants is, R² = 0.343 (refer Figure 7).

Figure 7.

Source: Primary survey (using AMOS 20 statistical packaging).

To examine the effect of ad creativity on consumer processing and response variables, a series of six seemingly unrelated regression lines were drawn to predict the dependent variables (See Figure 7, Table 10). Here, the predictor variable is ‘ad creativity’ and dependent variables are ‘attention, motivation, in-depth processing, ad attitude, brand attitude and purchase intentions’. Here ‘attention, motivation and in-depth variables are consumer processing variables and ‘Ad attitude, brand attitude and purchase intention’ are consumer response variables. The results reveal that ad creativity significantly influences consumer processing and response variables. All the parameter estimates of the model have critical ratio values > 1.96 which gives enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis. Hence, hypothesis 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 have been supported (refer Table 10). The model was found to be fit (refer Table 9). Thus, ad creativity significantly influences consumer behaviour and motivate consumer to get into action.

Table 9.

Summary of Model Fit Indices for Proposed Ad Creativity Model

Category	Measures	Good fit	Value	Conclusion
Absolute fit	Chisq	p < 0.05	χ² = 67.805	Model is fit
	RMSEA	< 0.05 good; 0.05–0.10 moderate; > 0.10 bad	0.074
	GFI	> 0.90	0.960
Incremental fit	AGFI	> 0.80	0.919
	CFI	> 0.95	0.962
	TLI	> 0.95	0.937
	NFI	> 0.90	0.945
Parsimonious fit	CMIN/df	< 3	3.082

Source: Author’s own calculations using AMOS software.

Table 10.

Path Coefficients and R2 of the Measurement Model (Ad Creativity Model)

			Standardized	Unstandardized Estimate	S.E.	C.R.	P	R²	Hypothesis
OC	←	Div	0.531	0.416	0.033	12.645	***	0.343	H1 Supported
OC	←	Rel	0.19	0.109	0.024	4.519	***		H2 Supported
Attn	←	OC	0.493	0.756	0.068	11.041	***	0.243	H3 Supported
Motiv	←	OC	0.538	0.805	0.065	12.434	***	0.29	H4 Supported
Depth	←	OC	0.529	0.817	0.067	12.132	***	0.28	H5 Supported
Attd	←	OC	0.312	0.445	0.07	6.401	***	0.10	H6 Supported
AttdBrand	←	OC	0.412	0.565	0.064	8.804	***	0.17	H7 Supported
PI	←	OC	0.477	0.623	0.059	10.571	***	0.23	H8 Supported

Source: Primary Survey.

Note: *** denotes significance at < 0.001.

Assessing the Creativity Practices of Ads

As divergence is central to ad creativity, measuring the mean scores across all 5 dimensions of divergence for the 10 sample ads (creative and less creative) resulted in the creative ad category taking the top 4 ranks. This indicates that dimensions of divergence are more dominating in creativity category than in less creative category. From the survey (see Appendix: Table 13) it was found that ads scored high on artistic dimension, followed by originality and flexibility dimensions. It was also observed that an ad had at least 2–3 dominating dimensions of divergence in it. The best combination of divergence determinants observed was: Originality plus artistic value, flexibility plus artistic value and elaboration plus artistic value (see Appendix, refer Table 14). Correlating with purchase intention, we find that the flexibility-plus-artistic dimension scores high on customer purchase intentions, followed by originality-plus-artistic content. Even for relevance dimension, creativity category ads are more dominating than less creative category ads (see Appendix, refer Table 15).

Managerial Implications

Results show that divergence is the leading indicator of creativity but relevance also plays a significant role in defining overall ad creativity. In the beverages segment, sponsors and customers tend to support high levels of creativity. Whenever items/brands are effortlessly comprehended and fixed to individual inclinations, an out-of-the-container approach is desirable.

Ads tend to attract customers, when they (the ads) contain elements that are unique, surprising or move away from the obvious, aesthetically appealing or has the ability to project and link the different uses or ideas of the product. Divergence thinking and creative ideation may help products/brand get more attention and develop positive attitude towards the brand being marketed. As resistance to marketing messages increases, the ability to attract customer attention gets linked to relevance. Our research findings suggest that the definition of ad creativity as divergence plus relevance is more persistent with the data. Hence, advertising agencies and sponsors should carefully consider both divergence and relevance, balancing them so as to have maximum effectiveness, namely, sales and brand attitudinal changes. The findings also suggest that ad creativity should include the five unique determinants of divergence—originality, flexibility, synthesis, elaboration and artistic value—along with the relevance dimensions, namely, relevance of ad-to-consumer, relevance of brand-to-consumer and relevance of ad-to-brand while judging ad creativity. Our research showed that divergence and relevance components of ads play a prominent role in creative ads. The results reported here put a pause to sponsors who resist divergent approaches and favour relevance over divergence. Our survey pinpointed that creativity in ads significantly influence consumer processing and response variables. Despite the fact that the scales of divergence and relevance of current study have been established for TV Ads, they can readily be adapted to media or marketing mix elements. Marketing managers can use these scales to judge the creativity of ad campaigns or of proposed ad. Creative ads can create a feeling of desire towards the product and put customers into action of purchase. Our research study found that flexibility-plus-artistic dimension scores high on customer purchase intentions, followed by originality-plus-artistic content. This information on combinational mix of divergence dimensions is very useful for clients and ad agencies while developing ads. Further, our sample ads in the study had at least 2–3 dominating dimensions of divergence in it. The most-used combination of divergence determinants observed in sample ads was—flexibility plus artistic value followed by originality plus artistic value. This indicates that when companies are trying to be creative, they are using these combinations. Our research study revealed that relevance determinant scored high in creative ads than in less creative ads. Hence, ads must be relevant to be creative. This research study has highlighted the ad creative practices of current businesses in the non-beverage segment and furthers our understanding of relationships among the key variables.

Limitations and Future Research

Although a study under a lab setting could provide better control over extraneous variables, it might not be appropriate to assert its findings. Thus, while the current study certainly shares this shortcoming, it has provided valuable information on Ad creativity. Hence, this is a useful pilot study to buildodels in realistic marketing situations with diverse consumer segments. Also, the use of student participants for the study may delimit the generalizability of the results and demand that research be conducted in more diverse consumer segments. Future research can also delve into exploring the relationship between divergence and relevance and their interaction effect. The divergence and relevance factors developed here can be extended to 4Ps or new product development process (Im & Workman Jr., 2004; Toubia, 2006;). In addition, studies can be conducted to go beyond the attentional effect of ad creativity and explore its role as a persuasion process. Priming effect of ad creativity can make the novel features of the product more noticeable and aid in decision making.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Appendix

Table 17.

List of Ads Chosen for the Research Study (Non-alcoholic Beverages & Drinks)

Sl. No.	Brand Name	Campaign Title	Category/Award
1	Horlicks	KYSO Credit	Less Creative: Mean Score of 2.91
2	Bournvita	Boxer	Creative: Effie 2014: Silver
3	Bisleri (Bottled Water)	Classroom fun	Less Creative: Mean Score of 3.14
4	Coca-Cola	Taking on formality to enter Indian Homes	Creative: Effie 2014: Bronze
5	AVT Gold Cup Tea	Finding the one	Less Creative: Mean Score of 3.03
6	Nescafe	How Nescafe defined a role for coffee in the life of the Indian youth	Creative: Effie 2014: Silver
7	Liv Pure (Bottled Water)	Cutting Pani	Less Creative: Mean Score of 2.84
8	Red Label Tea	Swaad Apnepan Ka (Taste of Togetherness)	Creative: Effie 2014: Silver
9	Frooti (juice)	Life	Less Creative: Mean Score of 2.78
10	Tata Tea Gold	The power of 49	Creative: Effie 2014: Silver

Source: Effie 2014 results and other National/Regional ads.

References

Aaker

David

(1996). Building strong brands. New York: The Free Press.

Amabile

T. M.

(1983, August). The Social Psychology of Creativity: A Componential Conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45(2), 357–377.

Ang

Swee

, & Low

Sharon

(2000). Exploring the Dimensions of Ad Creativity. Psychology & Marketing, 17, 835–854.

Ang

Yih Hwai Lee

, & Leong

Siew Meng

(2007). The Ad Creativity Cube: Conceptualization & Initial validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(2), 220–232.

Bagozzi (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: A Comment. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(August), 375–381.

Belch

G. E.

, & Belch

M. A.

(2004). Introduction to Advertising and Promotion: An Integrated Marketing Communications Perspective, 6th ed. McGraw-Hill/Irwin, Homewood, IL.

Besemer

and O’Quinn

(1986). Analyzing Creative Products: Refinement and Test of a Judging Instrument. Journal of Creative Behavior, 20(2), 115–126.

Till

Brian D.

, & Baack

Daniel W.

(2005). Recall and Persuasion: Does Creative Advertising Matter?. Journal of Advertising, 34(3), 47–57.

Burroughs

James E.

, & Mick

David G.

(2004). Exploring Antecedents and Consequences of Consumer Creativity in a Problem-Solving Context. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 402–411.

10.

Chandy

R. K.

, & Tellis

G. J.

(1998). Organizing for Radical Product Innovation: The Overlooked Role of Willingness to Cannibalize. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 35(4), 474–487.

11.

Daechun

An.

(2013). Cultural Influences on Perceptions of Advertising Creativity: A Cross-cultural Comparism of U.S. and Korean Advertising Students. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 5(5), September, 75–87.

12.

Earle

(2007). Considering a general theory of creativity in advertising: The case for a socio-cultural model. Journal of Business and Public Affairs, 1(2), 1–15.

13.

Eelen

, Rauwers

, Wottrich

V. M.

, Voorveld

H. A.

, & van Noort

(forthcoming). (2016). Consumer responses to creative media advertising: A literature review. In De Pelsmacker

(Ed.), Advertising in new formats and media: Current research and implications for marketers. Emerald Publishing.

14.

El-Murad

, & West

D. C.

(2004). The definition and measurement of creativity: What do we know?. Advertising Res., 44(2), 188–201.

15.

Hall

(2010). IPA report: ADS that win awards are 11 times more effective. AdAge. Retrieved from https://adage.com/article/global-news/ipa-report-ads-win-awards–11-times-effective/144942

16.

Erickson

, & Jacobson

(1992). Gaining comparative advantage through discretionary expenditures: The returns to R&D and advertising. Management Science, 38(9) (September), 1264–1279.

17.

Gaskin

, (2012). Name of tab. Stats Tools Package. Retrieved from http://statwiki.kolobkreations.com

18.

Greenwald

& Leavitt

(1984). Audience involvement in advertising: Four levels. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(June), 581–592.

19.

Guilford

J. P.

(1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Co.

20.

Heckler

S. E.

, & Childers

T. L.

(1992). The role of expectancy and relevancy in memory for verbal and visual information: What is incongruency? Journal of Consumer Research, 18(4), 475–492.

21.

, & Workman Jr.

J. P.

(2004). Market orientation, creativity, and new product performance in high-technology firms. Marketing, 68(April), 114–132.

22.

Jarvis

C. B.

, MacKenzie

S. B.

, & Podsakoff

P. M.

(2003). A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, (30:2), 199–218.

23.

Johnston

William A.

, Hawley

Kevin J.

, Plewe

Steven H.

, Elliott

John M.G.

, & Jann

DeWitt, M.

(1990). Attention capture by novel stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119(4), 397–411.

24.

Keller

K. L.

(1998). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring, and managing brand equity. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.

25.

Kover

A. J.

, Goldberg

S. M.

, & James

W.L.

(1995). Creativity vs. effectiveness? An integrating classification for advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 35 (November/December), 29–38.

26.

Lehnert

, Till

B. D.

, & Ospina

J. M.

(2014). Advertising creativity: The role of divergence versus meaningfulness. Journal of Advertising, 43(3), 274–285.

27.

Lord

K. R.

, Lee

M. S.

, & Sauer

P. L.

(1994). Program context antecedents of attitude toward radio commercials. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(1), 3–15.

28.

MacKenzie

S. B.

, Podsakoff

P. M.

, & Jarvis

C. B.

(2005). The problem of measurement model misspecification in behavioral and organizational research and some recommended solutions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 710–730.

29.

MacInnis

D. J.

, & Jaworski

B. J.

(1989). Information processing from advertisements: Examining the role of divergence. Marketing Theory, 4(1/2), 29–55.

30.

McCrae

Robert R.

(1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6), 1258–1265.

31.

Peracchio

L. A.

, & Meyers-Levy

(1994). How ambiguous cropped object in ad photos can affect product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 190–204.

32.

Petter

, Straub

, & Rai

(2007). Specifying formative constructs in information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 623–656.

33.

Petty

Richard E.

, John

T. Cacioppo

, & Schumann

(1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 135–146.

34.

Pieters

, and Wedel

(2004). Attention capture and transfer in advertising: Brand, pictorial, and text-size effects. Journal of Marketing, 68(2): 36–50.

35.

Reinartz

& Saffert

(2013). Creativity in advertising: When it works and when it doesn’t. Harvard Business Review, 91, 106–111.

36.

Richins

Marsha L.

, & Bloch

Peter H.

(1986). After the new wears off: The temporal context of product involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(2), 280–285.

37.

Robert

E. Smith

, Yang

, Buchholz

, & Darley

(2007). Modeling the determinants and effects of creativity in advertising. Marketing Science, 26(6), November–December, 819–833.

38.

Rosengren

, Dahlén

, & Modig

(2013). Think outside the ad: Can advertising creativity benefit more than the advertiser?. Journal of Advertising, 42(4), 320–330. Retreieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2013.795122

39.

Sasser

Sheila L.

, & Koslow

Scott

(2008). Desperately seeking advertising creativity. Journal of Advertising, 37(4), 5–19.

40.

Barnes

(2013). 5 steps for measuring marketing return on investment (ROI). Inbound Sales. Retreived from https://www.kunocreative.com/blog/bid/83802/5-steps-for-measuring-marketing-return-on-investment-roi

41.

Shimp

Terence A.

(1997). Advertising, promotion, and supplemental aspects of integrated marketing communications (4th ed.). Orlando, FL:Dryden.

42.

Smith

R. E.

, & Yang

(2004). Toward a general theory of creativity in advertising: Examining the role of divergence. Marketing Theory, 4(1–2), 31–58.

43.

Srinivasan

, & Hanssens

Dominique M.

(2007). Marketing and firm value. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(3), 293–312. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.46.3.293

44.

Simonton

Dean Keith

(2000). Creativity: Cognitive, personal, developmental, and social aspects. American Psychologist, 55(1), 151–58.

45.

Srull

T. K.

(1981). Person memory: Some tests of associative storage and retrieval models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7(6), 440–463.

46.

Sternberg

Robert J.

, & Lubart

Todd I.

(1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In Sternberg

Robert J.

(Ed.), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 3–15). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

47.

Stuhlfaut

M. W.

(2006). What is creative and what is not: The influence of social norms for creativity in advertising agencies. Department of Advertising, Public Relations, and Retailing. Retrieved from https://trove.nla.gov.au/version/264971167

48.

Stewart

D. W.

, & Furse

D. H.

(2000). Analysis of the impact of executional factors on advertising performance. Journal of Advertising Research, 40(6), 85–88.

49.

Teixeira

Thales S.

(October, 2014). When people pay attention to video ads and why. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2015/10/when-people-pay-attention-to-video-ads-and-why

50.

Thorson

Esther

, & Zhao

(1997). Television viewing behaviour as an indicator of commercial effectiveness. In Wells

William D.

(Ed.), Measuring Advertising Effectivenes (pp. 231–237). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

51.

Torrance

E. P.

(1987). Using the torrance test of creative thinking to Guide the teaching of creative behavior. Scholastic Testing Service, Benesnville, IL.

52.

Toubia

(2006). Idea generation, creativity, and incentives. Marketing Sci., 25(5) 411–425.

53.

Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Marketing, 53 (October) 1–23.

54.

West

Douglas C.

, Kover

Arthur J.

, & Caruana

(2008). Practitioner and customer views of advertising creativity. Journal of Advertising, 37(4), 35–45.

55.

Zinkhan

G. M.

(1993). From the editor: Creativity in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 1–3.