Are You In Good Hands?

Slogan Recall: What Really Matters

Chiranjeev Kohli
California State University,
Fullerton
ckohli@fullerton.edu
Sunil Thomas
California State University,
Fullerton
sunilthomas@fullerton.edu
Rajneesh Suri
Drexel University
surir@drexel.edu
Slogans are very important in brand building, and recall is considered one of the most
effective measures of slogan success. For this study, 220 respondents were asked to
recall slogans. Factors impacting recall of the 150 short-listed slogans were investigated.
The study relied on objective (rather than perceptual) data, and factored in the natural
variance associated with the variables of interest in the marketplace without imposing
the artificial constraints of lab settings. The results suggest that to improve recall, slogans
should be retained for long periods of time and supported by extensive marketing budgets.
When designing the slogans, care should also be taken to keep them short. However,
contrary to expectations, none of the other design elements—complexity of slogans, use of
jingles, and use of rhymes—had an impact on slogan recall.

INTRODUCTION their slogans and use them extensively—some-

“You are in good hands with…” If you answered
Allstate Insurance, you are correct. And, who is
the good neighbor in “Like a good neighbor”? It
is State Farm Insurance. These two slogans fin-
ished at the top among 30 major brands in a 2004
study reported by Bloomberg BusinessWeek (Kiley,
2004). In the study, researchers asked 500 respond-
ents to match familiar brands with their slogans.
The Allstate slogan was identified correctly by 87
percent of the respondents, and State Farm slogan
was correctly identified by 70 percent. Not bad at
all but what about “That was easy” and “It’s better
here”? The correct answers? Staples and Wendy’s,
respectively, which were correctly identified by
fewer than 1 percent of the respondents. “Good
call” (Miller), “Right here, right now” (Kmart),
and “The spirit of American style” (Buick) were
also correctly identified by only 1 percent of the
respondents—a dismal performance, especially
considering that these are dominant brands that
have been around for decades.
These findings are particularly troubling given
that companies make significant investments in
times as a launch pad for marketing campaigns.
For example, Pepsi has used its latest slogan,
“Refresh everything” to give “millions of dollars
to fund ideas that will refresh the world” (pepsi.
com; refresh everything.com; both retrieved
on November 6, 2010; Figure 1). The estimated
$20 million Pepsi spent on this initiative is a sig-
nificant component of its roughly $50 million
budget to “advertise Pepsi in the United States”
(Elliott, 2010).
The median for correct brand identification in
the BusinessWeek study was a meager 6 percent.
And, if this is the state of affairs for leading brands
with investments in the range of hundreds of mil-
lions of dollars, the picture has to be downright
worrisome for the lesser brands.
In our study, we investigate factors that lead
to higher recall of slogans. First, we discuss the
importance of slogans.
BRAND EQUITY, BRAND IDENTITY, AND SLOGANS
Brands are very valuable corporate assets (e.g.,
Crimmins, 2000). Interbrand, a global branding

DOI: 10.2501/JAR-53-1-031-042 March 2013  JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH  31

Slogan Recall: What Really Matters
Figure 1  Pepsi.Com and Refresheverything.Com Homepages
company, estimates the brand equity of
major brands every year. Several factors
are used to estimate a brand’s value, but
the dollar value of a brand’s equity is
generally based on its ability to generate
32  JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH  March 2013
economic profits (Brady et al., 2004). The
top brands worldwide are valued in the
tens of billions of dollars, making their
careful management a top corporate pri-
ority. For example, Coca-Cola, with the
Slogans are very
important in brand
building, and recall is
considered one of the
most effective measures
of slogan success.
highest brand equity in 2010, was valued
at $70.45 billion (Interbrand, 2010). How-
ever, a look at the balance sheet of the
Coca Cola Company and its subsidiaries
shows that all its assets combined are $48.7
billion only (Bolden, 2010). If liabilities
are factored in, its net worth is relatively
small compared to the $70.45 billion brand
equity it has been assigned. This is the
power of a brand. Microsoft ($60.90 bil-
lion) and McDonald’s ($33.58 billion) are
some of the other brands making the top
ten of the brand equity evaluations. They
invariably have brand identities that are
carefully crafted and then nourished over
the life of the brand.
So, what constitutes a brand’s identity?
There are three integral elements: name,
logo, and slogan (Kohli, Leuthesser, and
Suri, 2007). Each element plays an impor-
tant role. The name lies at the core; it is
the very basis of a brand’s identity. While
a brand name is a necessity, logos and
slogans are not required. However, most
brands have a logo and a slogan. They
help enhance a brand’s identity. Logos
use graphics, a universal language that
transcends geographical boundaries in
an increasingly global market. However,
both names and logos are limited in what
they can convey because of their inher-
ently shorthand nature. Names are often

limited to one or two words, which con-
strains what they can capture. Logos can-
not say much either. Slogans, conversely,
can be much longer, and provide oppor-
tunity to explain the brand (Dahlén and
Rosengren, 2005). Not surprisingly, they
are often referred to as brand signatures
(Figure 2).
Slogans can provide a unique and sig-
nificant contribution to a brand’s iden-
tity. This identity in turn enhances brand
awareness and brand image through
recognition, recall, and favorable asso-
ciations for the brand. Slogans serve as
“hooks” in capturing the meaning of
a brand (Dahlén and Rosengren, 2005;
Keller, 1998, pp. 151–152). Companies
encapsulate the core of their brand’s mes-
sage in the slogan, such as Nike’s attitude
in “Just Do It,” Taco Bell’s competitive
appeal in “Think outside the bun,” and
FedEx’s promise in “The world on time.”
Advertisers also firmly believe in the
power of slogans. Molian’s (1993) survey
of top U.K. advertisers found that a very
small segment (2 percent) felt that slogans
were of low value. The vast majority felt
strongly about the value of slogans, with
50 percent of the respondents rating them
to be “very valuable” (p. 43).
There is anecdotal evidence highlight-
ing the impact of slogans. In 1997, Pizza
Hut ran a number of ads declaring “war”
on “skimpy, low-quality pizza,” challeng-
ing anyone to find a better pizza than
Pizza Hut (Sacasas, 2001, p. 205). Papa
John’s, a competing franchise, responded
by running its own ads touting the quality
of its ingredients, making specific claims
about the sauce, dough, and toppings
and concluding with the slogan “Better
ingredients. Better pizza.” Pizza Hut sued
Papa John’s, claiming that their slogan
amounted to a false advertising claim.
Eventually, Papa John’s prevailed, but the
entire episode highlights the significance
companies attach to their slogans.
There is anecdotal
evidence highlighting
the impact of slogans.
Finally, there is financial evidence sup-
porting the importance of slogans. An
event methodology study using a sam-
ple of 87 firms investigated the effects of
announcements of new advertising slogans
on the market values of the firms (Mathur
and Mathur, 1995). There was a signifi-
cant positive market-value effect associ-
ated with announcements of advertising
slogans. Though the effect was not neces-
sarily permanent, the study demonstrated
that the market makes a note of companies
announcing changes in their slogans. Also,
the change in the valuation is not because of
the change in the slogan, per se, but instead
these announcements are construed as
“signals” for carefully devised marketing
and advertising strategies.
HOW DO SLOGANS WORK?
Slogans can be used to prime brand asso-
ciations. For example, “Built Ford tough”
primes the specific attribute of toughness.
Boush (1993) studied the effect of priming
advertising slogans on consumers’ percep-
tions of brand extensions. Respondents
Figure 2  Taco Bell’s Use of
Slogan as a Brand Signature
March 2013  JOURNAL
Slogan Recall: What Really Matters
were exposed to slogans that primed cer-
tain attributes of the brands. When asked
later to rate potential extensions of the
brands, those that had characteristics in
common with the primed attributes were
rated more favorably than those without.
A follow-up study by Pryor and Bro-
die (1998) replicated Boush’s study and
obtained findings consistent with it, con-
tributing additional evidence to suggest
the power of slogans in shaping brand
perceptions.
Going beyond priming of brand attrib-
utes, Dahlén and Rosengren (2005) found
that slogans can be direct carriers of brand
equity, too. They found that brands with
strong slogans are evaluated more favora-
bly. This evidence points to the efficacy
of slogans in positioning the brands. As
such, slogans play a central role in mar-
keting strategy and have become so pop-
ular in advertising that many ads are now
signed off with slogans (Lamons, 1997).
The proximity of slogans to the brands in
commercial message makes them attrac-
tive vehicles for building brands (see
Figure 2).
THE IMPORTANCE OF SLOGAN RECALL
Brand equity is defined as ‘‘the differen-
tial effect that consumer knowledge about
a brand has on the customer’s response
to marketing activity’’ (Keller, 1999,
p. 102). Differentiation lies at the heart
of a brand’s equity. Therefore, for brands
to build equity, customers should have
sufficient brand knowledge to form per-
ceptions about differences among the
brands (Biel, 1992). And the two primary
factors that influence brand knowledge
are brand awareness and brand image
(Keller, 1999).
The most common indicator of brand
awareness is brand recall, with variations
such as top-of-the-mind recall, unaided
recall, and aided recall (often referred to
as brand recognition). The role of slogans,
OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH  33
Slogan Recall: What Really Matters
as with the other elements of brand iden-
tity, is to enhance brand awareness and
brand image—and recall is the most
common measure. This is evident from
a study of top advertisers, which found
that the ease with which slogans can be
remembered is the most important fac-
tor in their effectiveness. The study was
based on a sample of 210 respondents (21
percent response rate from the 1,000 top
advertisers who were contacted), clearly
reflecting the importance of slogan recall
(Molian, 1993).
Dahlén and Rosengren (2005) argue that
consumers use “constructive memory” to
link slogans to brands when a brand name
is not provided to them (p. 161). Familiar
slogans provide motivation for consumers
to remember where they may have seen
the slogans and which brands they may
represent. Thus, brand building occurs as
brand associations are transferred from
the slogan to the brand. Such findings
underscore the importance of free recall of
slogans as a way to assess their contribu-
tion to the respective brands.
However, in the absence of a guiding
framework, companies often fail to use
slogans in a strategic manner, leading to a
dismal performance on the key measure
of recall, as reported earlier. We now look
at what we know from academic literature
and the business press regarding slogan
recall.
LITERATURE REVIEW
There is immense interest in the efficacy
of slogans (Kohli et al., 2007). However,
many of the articles on slogan efficacy are
opinion-based. We examine findings from
empirical studies on slogan recall. A review
of the literature reveals that several factors
can influence slogan recall. These factors,
described in the following paragraphs,
may be clustered into two categories:
(1) exposure in media, and (2) elements of
slogan design.
34  JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH  March 2013
Exposure in Media
The term media weight has been used in
the literature to reflect the prominence of
a brand’s advertising efforts in the media
(Corder, 1986; MacInnis, Rao, and Weiss,
2002). As such, it is a combination of reach
and frequency and is often measured by the
brand’s advertising budget. Corder (1986)
reported several studies showing a strong
positive correlation between advertising
exposure and ability to correctly identify
slogans. An early study (Keiser, 1975) used
a large multistage sample of 1,280 adoles-
cents and found that brand awareness and
slogan awareness were highly correlated,
and both (specifically, slogan awareness)
had a strong positive relationship with all
mass media advertising, including televi-
sion, radio, newspapers, and magazines.
Most consumer information-processing
literature seems to suggest an effect of
copy strategy, brand objectives, and media
spending patterns on sales. However,
Lodish et al. (1995) using a meta-analysis
of 389 split-cable television advertising
studies, concluded that media weight
does not increase sales. They felt that
increased advertising is likely to be more
helpful for smaller brands in newer mar-
kets than for strong brands in mature
markets.
MacInnis et al. (2002) reconciled this
apparent conflict between the two streams
and concluded that when affectively
based executional cues were used, brands
in mature categories also benefited from
increase in media weight. Using this
logic, brands with high media weight
should have a higher recall rate for their
slogans.
A study of spacing effect, the gap
between successive advertising expo-
sures, found that recall of print mate-
rial is also aided by multiple exposures,
because the opportunity to retrieve
earlier presentations during later pres-
entations strengthens memory traces
The literature suggests
that slogan design
influences its recall.
(Appleton-Knapp, Bjork, and Wickens,
2005). Arguably, the same could hold
true for slogans that have been used
consistently in advertisements, imply-
ing that maintaining the same slogans
can enhance recall, and changing slogans
even with consistent themes can interfere
with their recall.
In line with the findings by Appleton-
Knapp et al. (2005), recall can possibly
be enhanced in two ways: (1) increas-
ing media weight at any point in time by
increasing the intensity of the exposures
to advertisements, or (2) by increasing the
duration over which these exposures last.
So, we expect slogan recall to be greater
for higher exposure in media (i.e., larger
advertising budgets and longer peri-
ods over which slogans are retained and
supported).
Elements of Slogan Design
The literature suggests that slogan design
influences its recall. The specific aspects
of slogan design that can impact recall are
complexity, length, jingle, and rhyming.
In the following paragraphs, we summa-
rize the findings regarding each of these
aspects.
Complexity. Molian (1993), in his sur-
vey of top U.K. advertisers, found that
the ease of remembering the slogan was
considered the most important attribute
for slogans. Open-end comments from
respondents, however, seemed to be a bit
ambiguous. They often seemed to suggest
that the slogans should be short and sim-
ple. “Short and to the point, is essential,”

and “The essential requirement is sim-
plicity” were a couple of the comments
(p. 45). Conversely, Bradley and Meeds
(2002) argue that an increase in the com-
plexity of slogans results in consumers’
spending additional cognitive effort lead-
ing to increased elaboration, which in
turn leads to higher recall. They argue
that despite the “couch potato” image
of the American viewers, consumers are
not passive recorders of information but
instead spend some of their cognitive
capacity on processing marketing mes-
sages. So, the simplest slogans may not
be the most highly recalled. Their finding
is consistent with the elaboration likeli-
hood model (Petty, Cacciopo, and Schu-
mann, 1983) and suggests that insofar
as slogans go, “keeping it simple” may
not necessarily be better when it comes
to making them memorable. Thus, find-
ings from laboratory settings contradict
conventional wisdom and suggest that a
certain level of complexity is desirable to
enhance unaided recall.
Length. It is generally believed that
shorter slogans are more effective
because they are easier to recall. Corder
(1986) reported that several studies
assessing recall showed that while there
was a strong positive correlation between
advertising exposure and ability to cor-
rectly identify slogans, shorter slogans
were learned more quickly than com-
plex ones. While the respondents in the
Molian (1993) study emphasize the sim-
plicity of the slogan in assisting recall,
they often seemed to suggest this to mean
that the slogans should be short. How-
ever, FedEx’s slogan, “When it absolutely,
positively has to be there overnight” is a
classic example of a long slogan that is
not complex. We posit that complexity
and length are separate constructs and
measure them as such. Length of the slo-
gan was included in our study to measure
just that—the number of words in the
slogan.
Rhyming. Using aphorisms, McGlone and
Tofighbakhsh (2000) found that rhyming
phrases in their original form (e.g., Woes
mean foes) were more effective than modi-
fied aphorisms that did not include the
rhyme (e.g., Woes unite enemies). Using
30 such pairs of aphorisms (rhyming and
nonrhyming), they seemed to confirm the
assertion by Begg, Anas, and Farinacci,
(1992) that people make a judgment partly
on the basis of the fluidity with which an
argument is presented. Rhymes, there-
fore, possess an element of effectiveness
that may not be present in a semantically
equivalent but nonrhyming phrase. Meyer
and Schvaneveldt (1975) also found that
people were faster to judge that a string of
letters was a word when it was preceded
by a rhyming prime than when preceded
by a nonrhyming prime word. And, mar-
keters have incorporated this logic to
make slogans more effective supporters of
their respective brands. The hope is that
the presence of similar (rhyming) elements
will make it easier to remember the slogan,
as in Timex’s “It takes a licking and keeps
on ticking.”
Jingle. In advertising, music can play
many roles. It may attract attention, carry
a specific message for the brand, act as
a mnemonic, or make audiences more
receptive by creating a more favorable
state of mind (Hecker, 1984). Interestingly,
Park and Young (1986) found that music
can enhance or disrupt the recall of adver-
tisement. Under low involvement condi-
tions, music can help but can interfere
when consumers are highly motivated
and cognitively involved. However, a later
study (Kellaris, Cox, and Cox, 1993) found
that when music and message are congru-
ent, recall and recognition were indeed
enhanced.
March 2013  JOURNAL
Slogan Recall: What Really Matters
The easy flowing style
of jingles apparently
facilitated the memory
for slogans.
Edell and Keller (1989) provide empiri-
cal support that music serves as a particu-
larly effective retrieval cue in advertising,
similar to recall in slogans. This may be
because verbal and nonverbal (musical)
cues are coded differently in the memory,
leading to an incremental effect of music.
Using a large-scale advertising tracking
project, Stewart and Punj (1998) inter-
viewed a sample of 745 respondents using
random digit dialing and also found evi-
dence of the incremental benefit to having
jingles in advertising. Responses to the
nonverbal (musical) cues evoke additional
responses because of “dual coding” of
verbal and nonverbal (musical) elements
in advertising messages. More important,
“the ad trace retrieved from memory in
response to the nonverbal (musical) cue
adds power to a model predictive of the
consumer’s consideration set of alterna-
tives” (p. 48).
In a two-part study using an experimen-
tal design, Yalch (1991) provided insight-
ful findings on the use of jingles in slogan
recall. The first study demonstrated that
advertising slogans were remembered bet-
ter when presented with jingles than with-
out. This was attributed to jingles possibly
serving as mnemonics. The easy flowing
style of jingles apparently facilitated the
memory for slogans. The second part of
the study added a more interesting twist.
The author argued that if jingles do act
as mnemonics, their effect on recall will
decrease when respondents were shown
multiple exposures (specifically, two in
OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH  35
Slogan Recall: What Really Matters
the study). This is exactly what they dis-
covered. If these findings are extrapolated,
they may explain why the effect of jingles
may show up in single-exposure lab set-
tings but may not exist in real-world set-
tings where multiple exposures are more
typical. This is more likely to be true for
larger brands.
Many of the studies were done in lab
settings and based on single exposure.
Our research uses “real world” settings:
(1) actual slogans, (2) evaluated in the
“noisy” marketplace with competitive
interference, (3) with “real” people, and
(4) multiple exposures over time.
METHOD
The first task was to create a list of slogans
and determine the level of recall associ-
ated with each of the slogans. To assess
true recall, it was necessary to ensure that
respondents gave their responses with-
out any prompting from the interviewers
or assistance from any personal or media
sources. This eliminated options such as
Internet-based or mail surveys, which
would have afforded the respondents a
chance to talk to others or look at media
sources at their leisure. Though telephone
was also a viable option, we decided to
use personal interviews to get the purest
data for recall. This gave interviewers the
opportunity to explain the purpose of the
study and get top-of-the-mind recall with-
out the respondents receiving any outside
assistance.
A training session was held for the
interviewers, and survey guidelines were
shared with them. Interviewers were told
to contact respondents in neighborhoods,
on the street, and in malls and strip malls
and “to make the sample representa-
tive” of the general population. A total
of 220 respondents were contacted in the
greater Los Angeles metropolitan area of
Southern California. They were asked to
list any slogans that come to their mind.
36  JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH  March 2013
If respondents were not clear about what
slogans were or what type of slogans
could be listed, the interviewers clarified
it for them without prompting them with
any specific slogan. Respondents were
also urged to overcome the feeling of
“being put on the spot” and just list what-
ever came to their mind.
These slogans were recorded by the
interviewers. After the slogans were
listed, the respondents were asked to
identify the brand for each slogan. The
individual responses were later com-
piled into a master list. A total of 649
unique slogans were enumerated. This
master list was then sorted by the num-
ber of times each slogan was recalled.
We then carefully examined the list and
eliminated several slogans for the reasons
listed below:
1. Slogans that were not recalled by at least
two respondents: This was done to elim-
inate a pure chance recall or (as in some
cases) to exclude slogans that respond-
ents were able to see in the vicinity
while being interviewed.
2. Slogans we could not identify even after
online and offline search efforts.
3. Slogans for “local” enterprises: One of
the variables we looked at was national
(total) ad spend. Including local slogans
would have artificially inflated the ad-
spend number for these brands, because
unlike brands with national coverage,
all the ad spend for these brands would
have been local, too. The national ad-
spend data we collected were a fair
reflection of the money being spent on
the entire market and not concentrated
in the local market.
The requirement of recall by at least two
respondents resulted in a short list of 241
slogans. Further eliminations, based on
criteria “2” and “3” listed above, resulted
in a robust database of 150 slogans. Each
slogan was then rated on six attributes,
which were used as independent varia-
bles. The independent variables included
two facets of exposure in media (ad spend
and slogan age), and four elements of
slogan design. We compiled these
data from multiple sources, with
some measures (slogan age and use of
rhyming) requiring painstaking labor-
intensive efforts. The six variables are
listed below:
1. Ad spend: We used national advertis-
ing budget for the different brands as a
proxy measure for the media weight for
the slogans. Source: We compiled these
data from multiple sources including the
business press, company press releases,
Websites, and the annual Superbrands
report compiled by Brandweek (2009).
Data were refined to accurately reflect
the specific brand being considered. For
example, in the case of FedEx, we did
not include the budget for its Kinko’s
division.
2. Slogan age: This refers to the num-
ber of years since a slogan’s inception.
Source: These data were compiled from
multiple sources including company
Websites, industry reports, and other
Websites found through the use of Inter-
net search engines.
3. Length of the slogan: This was a sim-
ple count of the number of words in the
slogan. Source: This was done by the
authors.
4. Use of jingle: This was coded as a cat-
egorical variable (1 = presence of jingle;
0 = absence of jingle). Source: This was
done by the authors. Where it was not
obvious, we did further research to listen
to the jingle or establish its use. To check
the use of jingles, we used multiple
 Slogan Recall: What Really Matters

sources, including company Websites,

Table 1
YouTube (plus other video hosting ser-
vices), and other Websites found through Demographic Profile of Respondents
the use of Internet search engines. Los Angeles County United States
Study Sample (%) (2008 Estimates) (%) (2008 Estimates) (%)
5. Use of rhyming: This was coded as
Gender
a categorical­variable (1 = presence Male 52.3 49.5 49.3
of rhyming; 0 = absence of rhyming).
Female 47.7 50.5 50.7
Source: The categorization was done by
the authors. Age
20–29 32.3 20.3 18.7
6. Complexity of the slogan: This was a
30–39 23.6 20.9 19.0
categorical variable with two levels (0 =
40–49 15.9 20.8 19.9
low level of complexity; 1 = high level
of complexity). Source: Three marketing 50–59 14.5 17.5 18.3
faculty were used as judges. There was 60+ 13.6 20.5 24.0
high inter-rater reliability with consen-
Employment Status
sus on 84 percent of the slogans. Any Fully employed 59.5 60.5 60.7
differences were resolved through sub-
sequent discussions.
The mean number of slogans recalled fewer than 1 percent of the respondents.
FINDINGS by a respondent was 9.72. In the database The highest recall score was 58 percent
Respondents were drawn from the Los of 649 unique slogans that were enumer- (= 128/220) for “Just do it” (Nike), fol-
Angeles area and included residents of ated, on average a slogan was recalled by lowed by 38 percent for “I’m lovin’ it”
six counties, with the majority (94.5 per- 3.29 respondents (approximately 1.5 per- (McDonald’s), and 29 percent for “Have it
cent) coming from Los Angeles, Orange, cent). A significant majority of these “top your way” (Burger King). Table 2 lists the
Riverside, and San Bernardino counties, slogans” (74 percent) were recalled by ten most recalled slogans.
sometimes referred to as the “four-county
area” of Southern California. Although
this paper does not look at the effect of
Table 2
demographic variables, we wanted to The Top 10 Slogans
make the sample as representative of the Correct Brand
general population as possible. Table 1 Slogan Brand Recall Percent
provides the respondent profile for our Just do it! Nike 128 58
sample, and also includes correspond-
I’m lovin’ it McDonald’s 83 37
ing data for Los Angeles county and the
overall United States population. The Have it your way Burger King 61 27
male–female split was fairly even, with Melts in your mouth, not in your hand M&Ms 43 20
52.3 percent male and 47.7 percent female. Got milk? The National Milk 40 18
We also had a relatively uniform distribu- Processor Board
tion across age categories ranging from
Eat fresh Subway 38 17
20 to 29 to 60+, with 55.9 percent of the
M’m! M’m! Good! Campbell’s Soup 34 15
respondents being younger than 40 years
old. In our sample, 59.5 percent were fully You’re in good hands with Allstate Allstate 34 15
employed. Comparing these data shows Think outside the bun Taco Bell 30 14
that our sample was a fair approximation
The ultimate driving machine BMW 29 13
of the United States population (U.S. Cen-
Based on sample of 220 respondents
sus Bureau, 2010).

March 2013  JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH  37

Slogan Recall: What Really Matters
As explained in the Method section, a
final short-list of 150 slogans was used
for data analysis. These 150 slogans were
recalled a total of 1,514 times—an average
of 6.88 (= 1,514/220) slogans per respond-
ent. In 1,430 (94.45 percent) of these cases,
respondents were able to correctly iden-
tify the brand for the slogan they recalled.
This high incidence rate suggests that
when respondents recall slogans, they
are also able to identify the brands with
which they are associated. To verify this
assertion, we presented slogans from
our list of 150 to a second sample of
102 respondents. For the top 20 mostly
highly recalled slogans in our original
list of 150, these respondents were able to
connect the slogan to the brand only 64
percent of the time and, for the bottom 20
slogans from our list of 150, the percent-
age of correct identification dropped to a
mere 21 percent. This shows that higher
unaided recall is not only important in
itself, it suggests stronger connection to
the brand.
Our data analysis used recall as the
dependent variable (the number of times
a slogan was correctly recalled, provided
the respondents were also able to identify
Table 3
Negative Binomial Regression Model Estimatesa
Independent Variables b Standard Error
(Intercept) 2.187***
Ad-spend b
0.017***
Slogan age 0.020***
Length of slogan −0.111***
Jingle −0.135
Rhyming 0.296
Complexity −0.208
***p < .01; **p < .05
a
Log Likelihood –320.417; Omnibus test of fitted model against intercept-only model showed regression was statistically
significant with likelihood ratio chi-square = 27.710, df = 6 yielding p-value < 0.01
b
β and Standard Error for ad-spend scaled by a factor of 106
38  JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH  March 2013
Jingle, rhyming, and simplicity (or low complexity)
are three creative elements in slogan design.
the brand associated with the slogan) and
the six independent variables outlined in
the Method section. As our dependent
variable is a count variable, the two pos-
sible methods for the data analysis were
Poisson regression and negative binomial
regression. Owing to over-dispersion
(variance not equal to the mean) in the
dependent variable, we used negative
binomial regression to analyze the data
(Cameron and Trivedi, 1998). To ensure
that multicollinearity did not impact the
results, we checked the variance inflation
factors (VIFs). All the VIFs were below 5,
suggesting that multicollinearity was not
a problem.
The negative binomial regression model
predicting slogan recall from ad spend,
slogan age, slogan length, jingle, rhym-
ing, and complexity showed good fit
(Pearson’s c (88) = 201.34; log likelihood
2
= –320.41; Bayesian information criterion
= 677.35; consistent Akaike Information
Criterion [AIC] = 685.35). Compared to
Wald Chi-Square
0.266 67.228
0.005 9.683
0.006 12.419
0.040 7.465
0.239 0.320
0.324 0.833
0.229 0.825
the intercept-only model, the full model
offered better fit and was statistically signif-
icant (likelihood ratio chi-square = 27.710,
df = 6 yielding p value < 0.01). Among the
independent variables, three—ad spend,
slogan age, and slogan length—had a sig-
nificant impact on recall of slogans, with
brand correctly identified (Table 3). Both
ad spend and slogan age had a positive
impact, whereas length of slogan had a
negative impact on recall. Thus, the higher
the ad spend, the more the slogan was
recalled. Older slogans were recalled more
often, and so were shorter slogans. Slogan
age had the strongest impact, followed by
ad spend and slogan length. One of the
oldest slogans in our database was “Good
to the last drop” introduced by Maxwell
House in 1917. This slogan has been main-
tained consistently over the years. Strong
advertising support (ad-spend) also helps
tremendously as is evident from the strong
recall for the McDonald’s “I’m lovin’ it”
slogan. Finally, short slogans are easier to
recall, with Nike’s three-word slogan—
“Just do it”—clearly leading the pack in
our database.
Surprisingly, none of the other variables
had a significant impact. Jingle, rhyming,
df
and simplicity (or low complexity) are
1 three creative elements in slogan design.
1 They are often thought to enhance recall
but, contrary to our expectations, findings
1
from our study did not find evidence to
1
support this.
1 We also ran regressions with five
1 different subsamples of 120 data points
(20 observations per independent
1
variable) to assess the stability of the
regression model. The same three fac-
tors remained significant in their rela-
tionship with slogan recall. These factors

also maintained stable regression coef-
ficients. The other three factors (jingle,
rhyme, and simplicity of slogans) did
not approach statistical level of sig-
nificance (of 0.05), giving us reason to
be confident about asserting the ineffec-
tiveness of these variables in impacting
slogan recall.
In a nutshell, the creative elements
have little effect, and companies are bet-
ter served focusing on shorter slogans
and maintaining them for longer peri-
ods of time. And changing slogans for
the sake of improving them is definitely
not an appealing alternative, unless there
is compelling reason to discard a previ-
ous slogan. Though there is no harm in
using these elements, their use should not
restrict the creative options (e.g., if the
slogan has to be made longer to include a
rhyme, it is not worthwhile to do so). The
presence or absence of rhyming, jingles,
and simplicity may be dictated (beyond
slogan recall) by overall appeal of the
slogans and how well they support their
respective brands.
Creating new slogans is a viable alter-
native for the big-spending brands,
because they can jumpstart the recogni-
tion and recall of their new slogans by
sheer weight of their advertising. Pepsi
and Coca-Cola have successfully changed
their slogans in the past, with their latest
slogans—Pepsi’s “Refresh everything”
and Coca-Cola’s “Open happiness”—
being introduced in 2009. This can be con-
trasted with a relatively low-key brand
with limited advertising; Morton Salt has
maintained high recall because it has the
oldest slogan in our database (“When
it rains, it pours”) which, along with the
umbrella girl, has been used by Morton
Salt since 1911.
Older slogans, however, are now being
increasingly replaced by shorter slogans
and for good measure. This practice in
the industry is supported by our findings.
Interestingly, though two- and three-word
slogans were common in our database,
Nissan has now introduced a one-word
slogan: “Shift.” With this move, it has set a
new benchmark in slogan design.
Even though use of rhyming and jingle
did not have a significant impact on recall,
we wanted to see whether there was any
relationship between the two variables—
and they were positively related, indeed.
This may be explained by the fact that jin-
gles are helped by rhyming words, as in
“The best part of waking up is Folgers in
your cup” for Folgers coffee and “You’re
not fully clean until you’re Zestfully clean”
for Zest bath soap.
Length of the slogan was also corre-
lated to its complexity. Shorter slogans
were considered to be simpler. So, brevity
can be a contributing element to the sim-
plicity of a slogan. However, it may not
complete the picture. It is possible that a
rather long slogan may be relatively sim-
ple as in “Come to where the flavor is.
Come to Marlboro Country.” Our study
found evidence to support the impact of
slogan length, but not its complexity, on
slogan recall.
Finally, as we had naturally occurring
variances, comparison of b weights in the
negative binomial regression provided
some interesting (although not defini-
tive) insights. Reducing the length of the
slogan by a word will have the same
impact as retaining the slogan for an extra
5.5 years (= 0.111/0.020), and increas-
ing the slogan age by an additional year
will have the same effect as increasing ad
spend by more than $1 million (precisely
$1.18 million = 0.020/0.017).
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The way to build slogan recall, it seems, is
through enhanced exposure in media. This
can be achieved in two ways—through
increased spending on the brands and
cumulative exposure over time.
March 2013  JOURNAL
Slogan Recall: What Really Matters
Higher spending is
necessary to keep the
slogan on top of the
consumers’ mind.
Higher spending is necessary to keep
the slogan on top of the consumers’ mind.
However, in the absence of such spend-
ing prowess, it is important to retain
the slogans and not change them very
frequently. It is not surprising, there-
fore, that the top ten slogans are all from
major brands. Equally insightful is that
the top ten slogans have an average age
of 28 years. And, in this group, with the
exception of “I’m lovin’ it” from McDon-
ald’s and “Eat fresh” from Subway, all
slogans were introduced before the turn
of this century. M&M’s “Melts in your
mouth, not in your hand” was introduced
in the 1950s, and BMW’s “Ultimate driv-
ing machine” was introduced in 1975.
Longevity, therefore, goes a long way in
enhancing recall.
Some (possibly rightfully) claim that slo-
gans may need to be changed to help with
the evolving position of a brand. If and
when that is necessary, it is important to
realize that doing so without heavy media
support is unlikely to get the desired
results. Worse, it may end up harming the
brand, because the respondents may con-
fuse the new slogan as belonging to a com-
peting brand. It is only with sustained and
aggressive advertising that a slogan can
be strengthened and a link can be estab-
lished with the brand—a luxury only a
few brands can afford.
A creative slogan design element that
impacts recall is the length of the slogans.
However, we found that this construct
is distinct from the complexity of slo-
gans, which incidentally did not have a
OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH  39
Slogan Recall: What Really Matters
significant influence on recall in our study.
In fact, short slogans can be difficult to
comprehend (e.g., “Make 7-Up yours”),
and long slogans can be remarkably
simple (e.g., “There are some things
money can’t buy. For everything else,
there’s Mastercard”). And although
brevity and simplicity were correlated,
simplicity need not be a driving crite-
rion; brevity should be. In fact, in the ten
most recalled slogans, three were just
two words long, and another three were
three words long.
We did not find much support for rhym-
ing or jingles. These creative elements are
presumed to help with the recall of the
slogans, but our study did not find evi-
dence for their effectiveness. Though we
cannot conclusively make this jump in
logic, it is fair to assume that these two
elements may have an effect in the insular
environment of lab settings and in studies
based on single exposures. When the mes-
sages are repeated over time and there are
multiple cues, these are likely to lose their
impact.
Our research shows that slogan studies
in laboratory settings, while valuable, may
have limited generalizability to the real
world—an insight of particular impor-
tance to practitioners. The realities of the
marketplace (noise, competitive interfer-
ence, a distracted audience, multiple expo-
sures, and the like) can significantly alter
the impact of slogans’ inherent qualities
on recall (and possibly their effect on the
brand).
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
We used the most highly recalled slogans
in our study. Though we had significant
variation in our database, it was in essence
truncated at slogans that were recalled
by at least two respondents. Therefore,
caution needs to be exercised when gen-
eralizing to slogans with poorer recall.
Also, we used the advertising budget as
40  JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH  March 2013
an indicator of slogan exposure to assess
the impact it may have on slogan recall.
Though this captures the extent of expo-
sure, it does not capture the executional
elements—the creativity and impact of the
individual advertisements, which will also
impact slogan recall.
Our study focused on the recall of the
slogans. Though this is a very important
measure of success of slogans, it does not
provide a complete picture. Inherent to
the true success of a slogan are two more
facets, which need to be investigated. The
first facet is liking. Slogans that are well
liked can transfer some of the affect to the
brand. Our study did not look into liking.
Therefore, it is possible that some of the
slogans that performed well on the recall
measure may not be well-liked by the con-
sumers. Second, it is equally important to
evaluate how well a slogan supports the
target brand. As discussed earlier, slogans
can help with specific attributes of the
brands or be carriers of brands’ overall
equity. This is an important role slogans
are expected to play and a worthwhile
area for further investigation.
In conclusion, our study makes an
important contribution to slogan research
by examining the roles of exposure in
media and elements of slogan design on
recall. Even though the generalizabilty of
our study is somewhat limited because we
excluded slogans that were not recalled
by at least two respondents, our findings
are valuable additions to the literature in
this area. They provide important insights
for practitioners seeking to build brand
equity by maximizing the impact of their
slogans.  sumer Research 32, 2 (2005): 266–276.
Chiranjeev Kohli, PhD, is professor of marketing at
California State University, Fullerton. His research
interests include creating and evaluating brand image,
product and corporate identity, and pricing. His work
has been published in Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science and Journal of Business Research,
among others. He is also the founder of I.D.ENTITY, a
brand-consulting company, and has worked with several
leading companies on these topics.
Sunil Thomas holds a PhD from Penn State University and
is an associate professor of marketing at the California
State University Fullerton. His research interests include
branding, firm strategy, and marketing metrics. Prior to
joining academia, he worked in the consumer goods
industry as a brand manager. His research has been
published in Business Horizons, Journal of Consumer
Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction, and Complaining
Behavior, and International Business Research,
among others. He has also written book chapters on
industrial relationships and branding issues, which
have been published in the United States, Germany,
and Israel.
Rajneesh Suri, PhD, is an associate professor of
marketing at Drexel University. His research interests
include pricing, promotions, and branding. He has also
worked at McKinsey & Company as a pricing expert,
and his research has been published in the Journal
of Consumer Research, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, and Journal of Retailing, among
others. He also co-wrote The Price Advantage Workbook
(Wiley) and book chapters on pricing and brand
perceptions.
References
Appleton-Knapp, S. L., R. A. Bjork, and
T. D. Wickens. “Examining the Spacing Effect
in Advertising: Encoding Variability, Retrieval
Process, and Their Interaction.” Journal of Con-
Begg, I. M., A. Anas, and S. Farinacci. “Asso-
ciations of Processes in Belief: Source Recollec-
tion, Statement Familiarity, and the Illusion of
Truth.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Gen-
eral 121, 4 (1992): 446–458.

Biel, A. L. “How Brand Image Drives Brand
Equity.” Journal of Advertising Research 32, 6
(1992): RC6–RC12.
Bolden, D. “The Coca-Cola Company Reports
2009 Fourth Quarter and Full Year Results.”
Coca-Cola Company News Release, February 8,
2010. Retrieved November 6, 2010, from http://
www.thecoca-colacompany.com/presscenter/
pdfs/ko_earnings20100209.pdf
Boush, D. M. “How Advertising Slogans Can
Prime Evaluations of Brand Extensions.” Psy-
chology and Marketing 10, 1 (1993): 67–78.
Bradley, S. D., and R. Meeds. “Surface-
structure Transformations and Advertising
Slogans; The Case for Moderate Syntactic Com-
plexity.” Pyschology and Marketing 19, 7, 8 (2002):
595–619.
Brady, D., R. D. Hof, A. Reinhardt, M.
Ihlwan, S. Holmes, and K. Capell. “Cult
Brands: The BusinessWeek Interbrand Annual
Ranking of the World’s Most Valuable Brands.”
BusinessWeek, (2004): 64–71.
Brandweek. “Superbrands.” Retrieved Decem-
ber 3, 2009, from http://www.brandweek.
com/bw/superbrands/
Cameron, A. C., and P. K. Trivedi. Regression
Analysis of Count Data. New York, NY: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1998.
Corder, C. “Adimpact—A Multi-media Adver-
tising Effectiveness-measurement Method.”
Managerial and Decision Economics 7, 4 (1986):
243–247.
Crimmins, J. C. “Better Measurement and
Management of Brand Value.” Journal of Adver-
tising Research 40, 6 (2000): 136–144.
Dahlén, M., and S. Rosengren. “Brands Affect
Slogans Affect Brands? Competitive Inter-
ference, Brand Equity and the Brand-slogan
Link.” Journal of Brand Management 12, 3 (2005):
151–164.
Edell, J. A., and K. L. Keller. “The Informa-
tion Processing of Coordinated Media Cam-
paigns.” Journal of Marketing Research 26, 2
(1989): 149–163.
Elliot, S. “Pepsi Invites the Public to Do Good.”
New York Times, February 1, 2010.
Hecker, S. “Music for Advertising Effect.” Psy-
chology and Marketing 1, 3/4 (1984): 3–8.
Interbrand. “Best Global Brands 2010.” Inter-
brand Report, 2010. Retrieved December 9, 2010,
from http://issuu.com/interbrand/docs/bgb_
report_us_version?mode=a_p
Keiser, S. K. “Awareness of Brands and Slo-
gans.” Journal of Advertising Research 15, 4 (1975):
37–43.
Kellaris, J. J., A. D. Cox, and D. Cox. “The
Effects of Background Music on Ad Processing.”
The Journal of Marketing 57, 4 (1993): 114–125.
Keller, K. L. Strategic Brand Management:
Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1998.
Keller, K. L “Managing Brands for the Long
Run: Brand Reinforcement and Revitalization
Strategies.” California Management Review 41, 3
(1999): 102–124.
Kiley, D. “Can You Name that Slogan?” Bloom­
berg BusinessWeek, October 14, 2004. Retrieved
November 6, 2010, from http://www.
businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2004/
nf20041014_4965_db035.htm#SURVE
Kohli, C., L. Leuthesser, and R. Suri. “Got
Slogan? Guidelines for Creating Effective Slo-
gans.” Business Horizons 50, 5 (2007): 415–422.
March 2013  JOURNAL
Slogan Recall: What Really Matters
Lamons, B. “A Slogan for Almost Every Ad, But
Only a Few Worth Reading.” Marketing News 31,
9 (1997): 1, 4.
Lodish, L. M., M. Abraham, S. Kalmenson, J.
Livelsberger, B. Lubetkin, B. Richardson, and
M. E. Stevens. “How T.V. Advertising Works: A
Meta-analysis of 389 Real World Split Cable T.V.
Advertising Experiments.” Journal of Marketing
Research 32, 2 (1995): 125–139.
Macinnis, D. J., A. G. Rao, and A. M. Weiss.
“Assessing When Increased Media Weight of
Real-World Advertisements Helps Sales.” Jour-
nal of Marketing Research 39, 4 (2002): 391–407.
Mathur, L. K., and I. Mathur. “The Effect
of Advertising Slogan Changes on the Mar-
ket Value.” Journal of Advertising Research 35, 1
(1995): 59–65.
Mcglone, M. S., and J. Tofighbakhsh. “Birds of
a Feather Flock Conjointly (?); Rhyme as Reason
in Aphorisms.” Psychological Science 11, 5 (2000):
424–428.
Meyer, D. E., and R. W. Schvaneveldt. Loci
of Contextual Effects on Visual Word Recognition.
New York, NY: Academic Press, 1975.
Molian, D. “I am a Doughnut: Lessons for the
Sloganeer.” European Business Journal 5, 2 (1993):
40–47.
Park, C. W., and S. M. Young. “Consumer
Response to Television Commercials: The
Impact of Involvement and Background Music
on Brand Attitude Formation.” Journal of Mar-
keting Research 23, 1 (1986): 11–24.
Petty, R. E., J. T. Cacioppo, and D. Schu-
mann . “Central & Peripheral Routes to Adver-
tising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of
Involvement.” Journal of Consumer Research 10,
2 (1983): 135–146.
OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH  41
Slogan Recall: What Really Matters

Pryor, K., and R. J. Brodie. “How Advertis- Stewart, D. W., and G. Punj. “The Effects of Retrieved November 30, 2010, from http://
ing Slogans Can Prime Evaluations of Brand Using a Nonverbal (Musical) Cue on Recall and factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.
Extensions: Further Empirical Results.” Jour- Recognition of Television Advertising: Implica- html?_lang=en
nal of Product & Brand Management 7, 6 (1998): tions for Advertising Tracking.” Journal of Busi-
497–508. ness Research 42, 1 (1998): 39–51. Yalch, R. “Memory in a Jingle Jungle: Music as
a Mnemonic Device in Communicating Adver-
Sacasas, R. “The Pizza Wars.” Academy of Mar- U.S. Census Bureau. “American Fact tising Slogans.” Journal of Applied Psychology 76,
keting Science Journal 29, 2 (2001): 205–206. Finder.” United States Census, 2010. 2 (1991): 268–275.

42  JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH  March 2013