1 s2.0 S0167811622000465 Main

International Journal of Research in Marketing xxx (xxxx) xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
International Journal of Research in Marketing

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijresmar
Consistency and commonality in advertising content: Helping

or Hurting?
Maren Becker a, Maarten J. Gijsenberg b,⇑
a
ESCP Business School – Berlin, Heubnerweg 8-10, 14059 Berlin, Germany
b
Department of Marketing - Faculty of Economics and Business - University of Groningen, PO Box 800, 9700 AV Groningen, the Netherlands
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Scholars and practitioners widely argue that strong, successful brands are built on consis-
Received 8 April 2021 tent and unique positioning, which should be reflected in the brands’ advertising.
Available online xxxx Surprisingly, however, little empirical evidence supports this claim, especially with regard
to advertising content. The authors investigate whether and to what extent brands’ adver-
Keywords: tising content consistency—the similarity in the firm’s own advertising content over time—
TV advertising and commonality—the similarity between the firm’s and competitors’ advertising con-
Advertising content
tent—affect brands’ sales. Insights emerge from the analysis of the impact on sales of the
Consistency
Commonality
content of 247 television ads aired by 33 brands in six consumer packaged goods categories
over a four-year period. Results indicate that more than advertising spending, both consis-
tency and commonality in advertising content affect sales, especially with respect to long-
term cumulative sales. However, brands differ considerably regarding the direction of the
effects. While small brands tend to benefit from increased consistency and commonality in
advertising content, large brands tend to suffer from increased consistency. Thus, whether
consistency and commonality in advertising content will help or hurt depends on the size
of the brand.
Ó 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
1. Introduction
Popular marketing theory tells managers that strong, successful brands are built on consistent and unique positioning,
which should be conveyed to consumers through brands’ advertising (e.g., Aaker, 2012; Keller, 2008). This consistent and
unique positioning can be reflected not only in what is being conveyed by the brand (i.e., the advertising message) but also
in how it is being conveyed (i.e., the advertising content). A good example of such content consistency is Axe, a successful
deodorant brand with significant advertising spending that over the years has broadcast a series of ads that share a strong
focus on creativity and high-arousal emotions: original content (e.g., Smith et al., 2007) containing humorous and erotic
aspects. Axe’s approach clearly differs from that of Dove Men + Care, another successful deodorant brand whose advertising
consistently centers on informative content focusing on the functional aspects of the product. Although both brands adhere
to a strongly consistent positioning, their advertising contents have little or no resemblance (Web Appendix WAA offers
example ads from Axe and Dove Men + Care). A survey we conducted among marketing and brand managers1 shows that
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: M.J.Gijsenberg@rug.nl (M.J. Gijsenberg).
1
We conducted a survey with marketing and brand managers to gather additional insights about managers’ beliefs on consistency and commonality in
advertising content. All statements included in this paper stem from that survey. We refer to Web Appendix WAB for further information.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2022.05.004
0167-8116/Ó 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Please cite this article as: M. Becker and M.J. Gijsenberg, Consistency and commonality in advertising content: Helping or Hurting?, Inter-
national Journal of Research in Marketing, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2022.05.004
M. Becker and M.J. Gijsenberg International Journal of Research in Marketing xxx (xxxx) xxx
the advertising strategies of these two brands are in line with common practitioner believes that ‘‘[in ad content] consistency is
key” and that ‘‘[ad content] should be differentiated from their competitors to stand out in the market”.
These examples show that, when deciding on advertising content, brands need to determine the extent to which they want
the content to be similar to that of previous advertising (consistency) and how they want to position themselves relative to their
competitors’ advertising (commonality). Previous research suggests that such decisions matter when it comes to the advertising
message (i.e., what advertisers want to convey to consumers) (Pauwels et al., 2022). The question then becomes to what extent
consistency and commonality matter with regard to the advertising content (i.e., how advertisers want to convey this message
to consumers). While prior work has offered considerable theorizing on this matter, evidence is merely anecdotal. Furthermore,
the effects of consistency and commonality may not be straightforward, but depend on brand characteristics such as the brand’s
size (e.g. Becker, Wiegand, & Reinartz 2019; Pauwels et al. 2022). The results of our survey show that practitioners clearly hold
divergent believes regarding the role of brand size. For example, while most managers agree that smaller brands benefit more
from consistency compared to larger brands because ‘‘Younger brands need to build up a brand first, and so be more consistent”,
others believe that there is no difference as ‘‘High consistency works in favor of both small and large brands” or even pose the
opposite because ‘‘If a smaller brand is not that consistent, the brand might be forgiven more easily”. We shed more light on this
matter by being the first to empirically test how the influence of consistency and commonality of the ads’ content (i.e., how
advertisers convey their message) influence brand performance for small vs. large brands.
Overall, consistency in brands’ advertising content—the extent to which a brand’s advertising content is similar over
time—should help create and reinforce a unique and memorable brand image for consumers (Brown, Kozinets, & Sherry,
2003). Content consistency also helps consumers more effortlessly retrieve and activate their existing brand knowledge
(e.g., Albrecht & Myers, 1995, 1998; Wyer, 2004), fostering easier brand recognition. Commonality in brands’ advertising
content—the extent to which a brand’s advertising content is similar to that of competitors—may lead to competitive inter-
ference and brand confusion (e.g., Keller, 1987; Poiesz & Verhallen, 1989) and may reinforce copy wear-out effects (e.g., Naik,
Mantrala, & Sawyer, 1998).
However, as mentioned before, the effects of consistency and commonality may not be straightforward but depend on the
brand’s size. Consumers’ knowledge of smaller brands differs compared to that of larger brands as the latter typically have
higher visibility (e.g., Allenby & Hanssens, 2005; Farris & West, 2007). Consumers may therefore process the brands’ adver-
tising differently (Machleit, Allen, & Madden, 1993; Srull, 1983). As a result, the impact of content consistency and common-
ality may differ for these two categories of brands. For example, for smaller, lesser-known brands consistency might be more
helpful than for larger brands as it strengthens the weaker brand associations in consumers’ minds. In contrast, larger brands
may evoke boredom through repetition of the content (e.g., Naik et al., 1998). Similarly, smaller, lesser-known brands do not
necessarily suffer and may even benefit from commonality in advertising content because it reinforces the link between the
brand and the product category, fostering top-of-mind awareness (or ‘‘deep awareness”) in the category (Keller, 2008).
Our research provides insights on these issues by analyzing the dynamic impact on brands’ sales of their advertising con-
tent’s consistency and commonality. We acknowledge that the impact may vary depending on the time horizon (short-term
immediate effects vs. long-term cumulative effects) and brand profile (small vs. large brands). Specifically, we address the
following questions:
To what extent does consistency in the brand’s advertising content support brands’ sales of small vs. large brands?
To what extent does commonality with competitors’ advertising content hurt brands’ sales of small vs. large brands?
To what extent do effects differ in the short vs. the long run?
Drawing on the German consumer packaged goods (CPG) market we address these questions through content analysis of
247 television ads of 33 brands across almost four years. We augment this dataset with data on sales, advertising spending,
and price. We quantify the dynamic effects of the brands’ consistency and commonality with regard to four important adver-
tising content dimensions2—informativeness, low- and high-arousal emotionality, and creativity—on the brands’ sales by
embedding the series in a panel error correction model. Our model allows for differential effects for small and large brands
while controlling for actual advertising spending, price, and competitor activity. In addition, it allows for a straightforward dis-
entangling of immediate (short-term) and cumulative (long-term) effects (e.g., Becker, Wiegand, & Reinartz, 2019; Gijsenberg,
2014), acknowledging that substantial differences exist between short- and long-term sales effects of advertising (Gijsenberg,
2014; Steenkamp et al., 2005). Immediate effects account for only a small part of the total cumulative effects, as the latter
include possible delayed effects of advertising. Understanding how short-term effects of consistency and commonality may dif-
fer from their long-term effects is therefore of vital importance to managers when considering advertising content.
While our work is related to the study by Pauwels et al. (2022), we contribute to the literature in several different ways.
First, we focus on four dimensions of advertising content (the how) instead of product attributes emphasized in the adver-
tising message (the what). Second, we add a competitive viewpoint by analysing the commonality with competitors’ adver-
tising content. We thereby go beyond prior advertising research that mainly investigated the performance implications for a
single brand largely ignoring competitor (commonality) effects. Third, we extend and generalize the findings of Pauwels
2
Our study examines non-commercial advertising content (Tellis et al., 2019). This type of content differs from commercial content, which has a pure brand
focus (see the brand prominence dimension in Tellis et al., 2019).
2
et al. (2022) which are based on a single product category (i.e., minivans) by including multiple CPG categories in our anal-
yses. Fourth, we develop detailed dynamic measures to quantify the consistency and commonality in brands’ advertising
content, and analyse both their immediate short-term effects and cumulative long-term effects. These dynamic measures
go beyond measures suggested by extant literature (e.g., Mafael et al., 2021; Pauwels et al., 2022) as they, for instance,
explicitly account for important determinants of advertising effectiveness such as relative weight and ad decay. Finally,
we provide insights on boundary conditions in terms of brand profile—smaller, lesser-known versus larger, better-known
brands (e.g., Becker et al., 2019; Chandy et al., 2001)—on the extent to which consistency and commonality in different con-
tent dimensions may help or hurt brands’ sales in both the short and long run.
2. Literature review and hypotheses derivation
2.1. Role of advertising content
Previous studies argue that advertising content is an important driver of advertising effectiveness (e.g., Bruce, Becker, &
Reinartz, 2020; Du, Xu, & Wilbur, 2019; Guitart & Stremersch, 2020), and thus has a direct impact on actual consumer behav-
ior, including sales (e.g., Liaukonyte et al., 2015). The two most commonly studied content dimensions so far are informa-
tiveness and emotionality (e.g., Chandy et al., 2001; Guitart & Stremersch, 2020; MacInnis, Rao, & Weiss, 2002; Tellis
et al., 2019).
Managers employ informative content to persuade consumers by appealing to reason (Tellis, 2004). In line with previous
research (e.g., Bagozzi et al., 1999; Bruce et al., 2020; Guitart & Stremersch, 2020), we define informative ads as ads that pro-
vide factual descriptions about the product, its attributes, price, and/or the utilitarian results of using the product. Ads scoring high
on informativeness thus emphasize the cognitive reasons for buying the brand. An example is an ad by Cillit Bang that pro-
vides detailed information about the attributes and benefits of one of its household sprays and illustrates how the spray
helps against various stains (see Web Appendix WAC).
In contrast, managers use emotional content to persuade consumers through feelings (Tellis et al., 2019). We define emo-
tional ads as ads aiming to trigger positive feelings, which should evoke an emotional response to the product, and/or focus on
(unprovable) value-expressive and hedonic benefits from owning and/or using the product (e.g., Bagozzi et al., 1999; Guitart &
Stremersch, 2020; Teixeira et al., 2012; Teixeira, Picard, & el Kaliouby, 2014). Ads scoring high on emotionality thus empha-
size affective reasons for buying the brand. Prior work differentiates between low- and high-arousal emotions, where arousal
describes the intensity of the evoked emotion (Griskevicius et al., 2009). Low-arousal content cues include, for example,
warmth, nostalgia, and love, while high-arousal emotional content cues include eroticism, action, and humor.3 Whereas
low-arousal content engages consumers with touching content (Belch & Belch, 2017), high-arousal content works through stim-
ulating, attention-grabbing content (Nielsen et al., 2010). An example of emotional content with low arousal appears in an ad for
Merci chocolate. The ad shows various emotive scenes between two people, in which one thanks the other with Merci chocolate
(see Web Appendix WAC). High-arousal emotional content is used in a Coca-Cola Zero ad, in which, like an action star, a boy
escapes the parents of the girl he is dating with the help of a helicopter (see Web Appendix WAC).
Another content dimension besides informativeness and high-/low-arousal emotionality is creativity, which according to
practitioners is perhaps the most important driver for advertising success (Nyilasy & Reid, 2009; Smith et al., 2007). We
define creativity as divergent thinking (Reinartz & Saffert, 2013). Creative ads are ads that have original, novel, different, or
unique content (e.g., Koslow et al., 2003; Modig & Dahlen, 2020) substantially diverging from what consumers are used to.
Advertising creativity is well illustrated in an ad of Hornbach, a DIY store. Here, the mating of different insects is shown
to persuade consumers to spend more time gardening to promote (organic) diversity. This ad differs markedly from other
ads in the category and combines ideas that are not usually linked (see Web Appendix WAC).
Several studies have investigated the influence of these content dimensions on ad effectiveness (e.g., Chandy et al 2001;
Guitart & Stremersch, 2020).4 However, to the best of knowledge no study examining the effects of advertising content on
behavioral outcomes such as sales has considered possible temporal effects (the brand’s advertising content over time—i.e., con-
sistency) or competitor effects (the brand’s content compared to competitors’ content—i.e., commonality), even though, the
extent to which advertisers are consistent within their own advertising and how advertisers position themselves with regard
to their competitors’ advertising content should affect brand performance.
2.2. Consistency in advertising content
When creating new ads, advertisers must decide to what extent they want to focus on the same content dimension as in
current ads.5 For example, if the brand previously aired a rather informative ad, advertisers can either create another informa-
3
Prior studies do not agree on the classification of humor. Whereas some articles and books treat humor as a high-arousal emotion (Tellis, 2004), others treat
it as a stand-alone content dimension (Eisend, 2009).
4
The literature on creativity’s effects on behavioral outcomes is limited to Reinartz and Saffert (2013).
5
We do not focus on the advertising plot or its execution elements (spokesperson, music selection), or on the brand message (i.e., the what), but on the
holistic choice of the content dimension (i.e., the how). That is, two ads may use different plots and spokespeople, but if both evoke an emotional response, we
treat them as consistent (Schweidel, Bradlow, & Williams, 2006).
3
tive ad or focus on a different content dimension, such as emotionality. The closer the content of the new ad to that of the pre-
vious ad(s), the more consistent the new ad.
Theory argues that strong brands are built by consistent long-term communication support (Keller, 2008). Consistent ad
content creates and reinforces a unique, memorable brand image for consumers (Brown et al., 2003) because it strengthens
existing connections to the brand by reinforcing brand-related nodes and associations in consumers’ memories (Anderson,
1983; Wyer & Srull, 1986). The stronger the connections between the nodes, the more likely the consumer is to retrieve the
information and associate it with the brand (Montgomery & Unnava, 2007). As connections are strengthened primarily
through repetition and frequency, consistency in advertising content should help consumers more easily access and activate
their existing brand knowledge (e.g., Albrecht & Myers, 1995; Wyer, 2004). Furthermore, consistency might help mitigate
competitive interference—the negative impact of competitors’ advertising activities on the results of the brand’s own adver-
tising activities—which is vitally important for brands in ever more cluttered environments (Danaher et al., 2008): estimated
consumer exposure to advertising is, on average, over 4,000 ad messages daily (Simpson, 2017). Using similar advertising
content should create fewer but stronger links, which competitors find harder to overcome (Yaveroglu et al., 2008). As such,
consumers may be more likely to recognize the advertising brand when the content remains consistent. Recognition is crit-
ical: if consumers fail to register the advertised brand correctly, marketing investments will be wasted and any sales effect
will be lost (Rossiter & Bellman, 2005).
Other research, however, suggests that more variation—and hence less consistency—in advertising could be better for
brands’ performance. Unlike mere increases in advertising expenditures, changes in advertising execution can have a signif-
icant positive impact on brand performance (Eastlack & Rao, 1989; Lodish et al., 1995), as variety in the advertising execution
generates surprise and captures consumers’ attention (Naik et al., 1998; Tellis, 2004). Recent research suggests that this
response may also apply to variation in content (Dall’Olio & Vakratsas, 2022).
Thus, while consistency is expected to have a positive effect, some studies suggest the opposite. In the end, effects may
depend on brand size (i.e., small vs. large).
2.3. Commonality in advertising content
Ads air in a highly cluttered environment awash with competitive advertising. Interference is likely even more detrimen-
tal when the competing ads not only come from the same product category but also are similar in their content (i.e., strong
commonality), since consumers evaluate ads as similar when they use the same content dimension (Schweidel et al., 2006).
Atypical aspects deviating from an overall (implicit) norm can be more successful, for example in terms of liking (Berger &
Packard, 2018). A possibly effective way to rise above the clutter thus appears to lie in being dissimilar to competitors’ adver-
tising content (Pieters, Warlop, & Wedel, 2002), thereby creating a distinct position in consumers’ minds (e.g., Aaker, 2012;
Keller, 2008).
Previous literature has shown that similarity in brands’ advertising content can lead to reduced recall of both the brand
and the advertising claims (Burke & Srull, 1988; Kumar, 2000), an effect that should negatively influence sales. First, com-
monality may lead to relatively weak consumer associations between the brand and its advertising, later impeding con-
sumers’ ability to recall the advertised information (Keller, 1991). Second, commonality may confuse consumers so that
they do not remember which ad belongs to which brand (Keller, 1987). When competitors’ advertising content is highly sim-
ilar, creating a unique brand position is more difficult. Finally, strong commonalities lower the perceived contrast between
ads, which may intensify competition for consumers’ attention (Pieters, Wedel, & Zhang, 2007) and accelerate wear-out
because consumers are less motivated to process these ads (Naik et al., 1998). Fig. 1 shows four perfume ads with strong
commonality illustrating our above outlined reasoning.
Fig. 1. Advertising of different perfume brands.
4
However, some degree of commonality could also be helpful, as the advertising content should match content that is
prevalent in the product category, fostering so-called ‘‘deep awareness”—that is, a clear link between the brand and the cat-
egory resulting in high top-of-mind awareness (Keller, 2008).
To illustrate high and low consistency as well as strong and weak commonality, we show sample ads from two brands in
our dataset in Web Appendix WAD.
2.4. Differences between small and large brands
The ultimate effect of consistency and commonality in advertising content on brand sales may depend on the brand’s size
(e.g., Becker et al., 2019; Chandy et al., 2001). Owing to a more widespread distribution and higher overall advertising and
promotional spending, larger brands usually have stronger visibility (e.g., Allenby & Hanssens, 2005; Danaher et al., 2008;
Farris & West, 2007; Sethuraman et al., 2011). They thus benefit from better chances to break through the clutter, as well
as from higher awareness and familiarity (e.g., Donthu, 1994).
Prior literature suggests that advertising for smaller, lesser-known brands may work differently than for larger, better-
known brands (Machleit, Allen, & Madden, 1993; Srull 1983). While information for smaller, lesser-known brands is stored
in common-knowledge memory structures, information for larger, better-known brands is stored in separate brand-based
structures (Srull, 1983). Thus, in addition to the strength of the individual brand-related nodes in the brain, the different
memory structures will influence how easily consumers process and retrieve ad information. Below, we elaborate on the
differential effects of consistency and commonality in advertising content for brands with different sizes.
2.4.1. Brand size and consistency

Smaller brands suffer from lower awareness (e.g., Donthu, 1994). Brand-related nodes in consumers’ minds are conse-
quently weaker than those of larger, better-known brands. Consistency in advertising content can be a straightforward
way for these smaller brands to foster the build-up of strong nodes in consumers’ minds. While repeated advertising content
will reinforce consumers’ retention of information and strengthen the brand-related nodes, ever-new advertising content
may limit consumers’ ability to recall information from previous ads (Burke & Srull, 1988; Lynch & Srull, 1982), hampering
the strengthening of existing nodes. In addition, consumers may have difficulty learning new information about a brand
because the previously provided information is not deeply embedded in their minds, but is stored in common-knowledge
structures (Srull, 1983) or short-term memory (Nairne, 2002). Low embeddedness would require more cognitive resources
and more active involvement from the consumer to process, remember, and ultimately activate the existing information on
the brand when making a purchase decision.
H1. Consistency in advertising content has a positive effect on the sales of small brands.
For larger brands, we expect consistency to be less important or possibly even harmful. Since information about familiar
brands is stored in separate brand-based structures (Srull, 1983), consumers may have less difficulty storing and assimilating
new information in addition to the information from previous advertising. Also, larger brands benefit from stronger brand-
related nodes and memory traces in the brain, so they tend to occupy a distinct position in consumers’ minds (Kent & Allen,
1994). This positioning facilitates retrieval of information from previous advertising. Thus, if larger brands constantly focus
on the same already familiar advertising content, consumers could over time find the content boring (e.g., Naik et al., 1998),
leading to lower motivation to process the advertising (Chandy et al., 2001) and ultimately to lower brand performance in
terms of sales.
H2. Consistency in advertising content has a less positive effect on the sales of large compared to small brands.
2.4.2. Brand size and commonality

One of the first goals of any communication strategy should be to establish (and subsequently reinforce) the connection
between the brand and the product category it belongs to (Keller, 2008), to ensure that customers understand the product
category in which the brand competes. While larger, better-known brands benefit from strong brand-related nodes in con-
sumers’ brains, smaller, lesser-known brands face the challenge of much weaker nodes when it comes to the connection of
the brand to the product category. Strong commonality with other ads in the same product category could then strengthen
the connection between the product category and the brand, fostering top-of-mind (‘‘deep”) awareness. This heightened
awareness should increase the likelihood that consumers will remember the brand as a member of the product category
and include it in their consideration set (Posavac et al., 2001).
Commonality also facilitates comparison between brands, which can be particularly beneficial for lesser-known brands
(Lee & Lee, 2011) because comparison helps consumers identify key points of parity and differentiation. The copycat liter-
ature shows that similarities between brands (e.g., showing similar ads) cause consumers to perceive two brands (e.g., copy-
cat and market leader) as having similar attributes (Saenger, Jewel, & Grigsby, 2017; van Horen & Pieters, 2012). Thus,
commonality in advertising content could benefit smaller brands by transferring consumers’ positive attitudes toward the
established larger, well-known brand to the smaller, lesser-known brand (Jewell & Unnava, 2003).
5
On the other hand, commonality could have negative effects for smaller, lesser-known brands. Previous literature shows
that competitive interference is particularly problematic for unfamiliar brands (Burke & Srull, 1988; Kent, 1997), as con-
sumers store information for unfamiliar brands in common-knowledge structures that foster confusion and ‘‘mistrieval”
(Kent, 1997). When consumers are unsure which brand aired an ad, they are more likely to associate the ad with the known
brand than with the unknown brand (Schweidel et al., 2006). However, given their more fundamental nature and impor-
tance, positive category-association effects will likely outweigh these negative interference effects for smaller brands. As
being associated with the category is a hygiene factor, competitive interference plays a role only when the connection with
the category is established.
H3. Commonality in advertising content has a positive effect on the sales of small brands.
With respect to large brands, some studies argue that, in general, competitive interference is less of a problem (Kent &
Allen, 1993; Srull, 1983). High brand awareness and strong linkages between brand nodes tend to mitigate weak claim acti-
vation and source confusion (Keller, 1987). In addition, previous literature shows that consumers are more likely to pay
attention to ads from large, better-known brands (Alba, Hutchinson, & Lynch, 1991; Campbell & Keller, 2003), which could
further reduce the competitive interference effect. This reaction would imply that commonality is less detrimental to larger
brands. However, other research has shown that the reduced interference effect for well-known brands does not apply to
contextual interference, where the interference is caused by similar advertising content (Kumar & Krishnan, 2004). Moreover,
for better-known brands that already have an established connection to the brand category, differentiating themselves
through content may be even more important to avoid boredom and wear-out effects (Naik et al., 1998). Thus, we expect
a less positive effect of commonality in advertising content for larger brands.
H4. Commonality in advertising content has a less positive effect on the sales of large brands compared to small brands.
3. Data
3.1. Market data
To address our research questions, we rely on a combined set of scanner, retail panel, and media data from the Nielsen
Company for six CPG categories sold on the German market: chocolate bars, yogurt, razors, shampoo, shower gel, and house-
hold detergents. The dataset contains brands’ weekly sales data and television advertising spending as well as information
on product prices over 200 weeks, from March 2010 to December 2013. Although this dataset covers all brands in these cat-
egories, to ensure sufficient variation in our consistency and commonality measures, our analyses take into account only
‘‘regular” advertisers (brands advertising at least 20% of the time6). In addition, consistency likely plays only a minor role
for brands that do not advertise much, as consumers forget the content before the next ad is aired (Naik et al., 1998). Thus, these
brands are out of scope for this study. Of the 132 brands in our dataset,7 half aired at least one TV ad within our time frame, and
33 brands are considered regular advertisers and are thus included in our analysis. These brands aired a total of 247 different
ads and are responsible for 82% of the total advertising spend within these categories. Table 1 provides descriptive statistics.
Furthermore, they are all national brands. To determine some of the variables included in our model, we consider the entire
competitive environment. Specifically, to determine competitor advertising, seasonality, commonality scores, and brand size
in terms of market share, we included all brands in the category, regardless of whether those brands are considered regular
advertisers.
3.2. Advertising content measures
To determine the consistency and commonality measures, we evaluated all ads on various content cues that contribute to
the four content dimensions of informativeness, low- and high-arousal emotionality, and creativity.
3.2.1. Operationalization
Through an extensive literature search, we identified and measured 16 content cues that should contribute to the four
content dimensions of informativeness, low- and high-arousal emotionality, and creativity. We use four content cues for
informativeness. We measure two of the cues, information value and relevance, on multi-item 7-point scales. The other
two, number of attributes and benefits mentioned in the ad, are ratio variables. We determine low- and high-arousal emo-
tionality on the basis of three commonly used emotions each (nostalgia, romance, and warmth, and eroticism, humor, and
action, respectively), all of which we measure on established, multi-item, 7-point scales (Edell & Burke, 1987). Finally, to
determine creativity, we measure six content cues on multi-item 7-point scales. Specifically, we consider five divergence
6
Gijsenberg and Nijs (2019) find an average advertising frequency of 41.5% across 370 brands in 71 CPG product categories that advertise at least one time in
a four-year period, with all included brands advertising more than 10% of the time, and over 70% (55%) of the brands advertising more than 20% (30%) of the
time.
7
For the 132 brands, we consider all brands with a market share of over 0.01%.
6
Table 1
Descriptive statistics for advertising data.
Average value Average Average advertising Average weekly ad Average weekly ad spending only
market share number of ads frequency (in weeks) spending (in €) when spending (in €)
Mean 0.07 7.5 84 209,265 412,447
Std. deviation 0.05 5.4 38 139,138 138,985
dimensions—flexibility, synthesis, artistic value, elaboration, and originality (Smith et al., 2007)—as well as a sixth cue, sur-
prise, that is often linked to creativity (Goldenberg & Mazursky, 2007). Ultimately, we rescale all content cues to take a value
between 0 and 1. We provide further information on the measurement of each content cue in the Appendix and offer a
detailed explanation of the identification and operationalization of the cues for our four content dimensions in Web Appen-
dix WAE.
3.2.2. Coding procedure

Consistent with previous research (Becker et al., 2019; MacInnis, Rao, & Weiss, 2002), we paid seven independent experts
(marketing research assistants, all pursuing the Master in Marketing MSc of a large German University) to evaluate the con-
tent of each ad in terms of the 13 content cues. All experts underwent a two-day training session in which we discussed each
variable and clarified any wording problems. After the training, we provided each expert with a USB stick that contained all
ads and the coding instructions, so the experts could conduct the ratings at their own pace, at home. However, we advised
them to rate no more than five ads per day and to take a break after watching two ads in a row. To avoid order biases, the
sequence of ads differed for each expert. To ensure the quality of measurement, we assessed intercoder reliability using
Krippendorff’s (1980) alpha. All but two constructs—surprise and relevance—exceeded the critical value of 0.67 (see
Table A1 in the Appendix). However, the scores for surprise and relevance should still be acceptable given the small number
of experts, seven per ad, and the well-known challenge of objectively measuring subjective constructs such as surprise
(Teixeira et al., 2014).
4. Methodology
To provide insights into the issues discussed above, we first determine the extent of consistency and commonality in the
brands’ advertising content. We then quantify the dynamic overall sales effects of brands’ content consistency and common-
ality. Finally, we judge the extent to which such effects can differ between small and large brands.
4.1. Judging content consistency and commonality
4.1.1. Consistency
In a first step, we determine the extent to which a brand’s advertising content is consistent over time. We acknowledge
that (a) a brand can use multiple executions in a single week, (b) consistency should encompass both contemporaneous and
over-time consistency, and (c) more recent advertising activity will have a stronger impact than older activity.
For each week, using the following measure we operationalize content consistency across a moving window that includes
the week of interest and the preceding 26 weeks8 (half a year):
2 P26 P26 PNexecb;th PNexecb;ti PLf 3
c TSb;ti;k;l
l¼1 kb;th;j kb;ti;k TSb;th;j;l
Consistencyb;t;f ¼ ln41 5
h¼0 i¼h j¼1 k¼1 b;th;j;ti;k
P26 P26 PNexecb;th PNexecb;ti PLf ð1Þ
h¼0 i¼h j¼1 k¼1 c
b;th;j;ti;k l¼1 kb;th;j kb;ti;k
with

¼0 if h ¼ i and j ¼ k
cb;th;j;ti;k
¼ 1 else :
For each brand b and content dimension f, we first determine in each week t-h (h = 0,. . .,26) for all advertising executions j
in that week, the absolute difference between the scores TS of each of those executions on the content cues l (l = 1,. . ., Lf)
underlying the content dimension f with the scores TS on these cues for all other executions k in that same week t-h as well
as in previous weeks t-i (i = h,. . .,26) in the window, with individual cue scores TS ranging from 0 to 1. We thereby account for
differential advertising decay k relative to the focal week t of both executions j and k that are being compared. More recent
executions will thus have a stronger impact, whereas older executions will have less weight in consumers’ minds.9 We sum
8
To test the robustness of our results, we show the results for two alternative time windows (13 and 39 weeks) in Web Appendix WAG. Results are largely
similar across the different time windows.
9
This approach goes beyond the work of Pauwels et al. (2022) who operationalize decay as advertising having full effect (no decay) in the first year and no
effect afterwards (full decay).
7
these decay-weighted differences and normalize the sum to obtain a difference measure ranging between 0 (no difference) and
1 (no similarity at all). We then define content consistency as the complement of this content difference measure. We thus
obtain for each brand b and for each of the four content dimensions f (informativeness, low- and high-arousal emotionality,
and creativity) in every week t the level of consistency in the advertising executions in the 27-week moving window ending
that week, ranging between 0 (no consistency at all) and 1 (full consistency). Finally, taking the natural logarithm allows the
interpretation of effects in terms of elasticities—a common way to judge advertising and other marketing effects (Hanssens,
2015)—and takes into account possible diminishing returns to consistency.
For the decay k we adopt a cubic specification. We thus acknowledge that decay will be driven by two directionally
opposing processes: forgetting and purchase reinforcement. Previous research has shown that forgetting occurs gradually
rather than instantaneously (Aravindakshan & Naik, 2011; Zielske, 1959). Purchase reinforcement occurs when the con-
sumer repeat-purchases a product out of habit after an initial advertising-induced purchase, and keeps reminding the con-
sumer of the brand, mitigating forgetting effects (Lodish et al., 1995; Givon & Horsky, 1990; Vande Kamp & Kaiser, 1999).
Over time, however, forgetting effects may become stronger and consumers may start to discover other brands, thus lower-
ing the purchase reinforcement-driven mitigating effects. A cubic decay specification elegantly captures this initially slow
but gradually accelerating process. For advertising execution j of brand b in week t-h, the resulting decay is then given by:
3
kb;th;j ¼ 1 ðh=27Þ ð2Þ
4.1.2. Commonality
Next, we judge the extent to which a brand’s advertising shares parts of its content with the advertising of its competitors.
We acknowledge that (a) brands can use multiple executions in a single week, (b) commonality should be seen in terms of
both contemporaneous and over-time commonality, (c) more recent executions will have a stronger impact than older exe-
cutions, and (d) commonality between executions is likely more important for executions with smaller differences in share
of voice (SOV).
For each week, we operationalize content commonality across a moving window that includes the week of interest and
the preceding 26 weeks using the following measure:
2
P26 P26 PNexecb;th PNexecc;ti PLf jSOV SOV c;ti;k j 3
kb;th;j kc;ti;k ð b;th;j Þ TSb;th;j;l TSc;ti;k;l
6 h¼0 i¼h j¼1 k¼1 l¼1 SOV b;th;j 7
Commonalityb;t;f ¼ ln6
41 7
5
P26 P26 PNexecb;th PNexecc;ti PLf jSOV b;th;j SOV c;ti;k j
h¼0 i¼h j¼1 k¼1 l¼1 k b;th;j kc;ti;k ð SOV
Þ
b;th;j
ð3Þ
For each brand b and content dimension f, we first determine in each week t-h (h = 0,. . .,26) for all advertising executions j
in that week, the absolute difference between the scores TS of each of those executions on the content cues l (l = 1,. . ., Lf)
underlying the content dimension f with the scores TS on these items for all executions k by competitors c in that same week
t-h as well as in previous weeks t-i (i = h,. . .,26) in the window, with individual cue scores TS ranging from 0 to 1. We thereby
account for differential advertising decay k relative to the focal week t of both executions j and k that are being compared, as
well as the relative difference in SOV of the executions. More recent executions will thus have a stronger impact, whereas
older executions will have less weight in consumers’ minds. Stronger asymmetry in terms of SOV will amplify the difference
effect.
We sum these decay- and SOV-weighted differences and normalize the sum to obtain a competitor difference measure
ranging between 0 (no difference) and 1 (no similarity at all). We then define content commonality as the complement of
this competitor content difference measure. As with content consistency, we obtain for each brand b and for each of the four
content dimensions f (informativeness, low- and high-arousal emotionality, and creativity) in every week t the level of com-
monality in the advertising executions in the 27-week moving window ending that week, ranging between 0 (no common-
ality at all) and 1 (full commonality). Finally, taking the natural logarithm allows for the interpretation of effects in terms of
elasticities and takes into account possible diminishing returns to commonality.
Importantly, this operationalization builds upon a cumulative per-brand comparison of commonality between ads of
individual brands. It does not require the existence of a single (strong) norm in the category, but allows for the existence
of multiple groups of brands, each possibly with its own norm. Therefore, both the concept and operationalization of com-
monality are broader and more flexible than the concept of (a)typicality (e.g., Berger & Packard, 2018), which is nested in
commonality, thus adding to the generalizability of our findings across different competitive settings.
4.2. Advertising response model
Next, we want to determine the short- and long-term effects of each consistency and commonality measure on brand
sales. We therefore embed the consistency and commonality measures in a market response model. Specifically, we use a
panel error correction model (ECM) with fixed effects as it provides both short-term (ST) and long-term (LT) elasticities that
do not suffer from collinearity. Recent applications of the ECM in marketing include Becker, Wiegand, and Reinartz (2019),
Gijsenberg (2014), and van Heerde, Srinivasan, and Dekimpe (2010). The ECM can be applied to co-integrated evolving series,
8
but also to stationary series. In the latter case, all included data series need to be stationary. We assess stationarity of the
different time series using a panel unit root test (Levin et al., 2002) with an intercept and a trend as exogenous variables.
The results of this test show that our time-series variables are all stationary. For each of the consistency and commonality
measures of the four content dimensions, we specify the following base model:10
DlnSalescb;t ¼ b0 þ bST
1 DlnPricecb;t þ b2 DlnCompetitorAdSpendcb;t þ b3 DlnSeasonalityc;t þ b4 DlnAdSpending cb;t
ST ST ST
LT
þ b5 DContentMeasurecbf ;t þ p lnSalescb;t1 b1 lnPricecb;t1 þ b2 lnCompetitorAdSpendcb;t1
ST LT

þ bLT LT LT
3 lnSeasonalityc;t1 þ b4 lnAdSpending cb;t1 þ b51 ContentMeasurecbf ;t1 þ cTrendt þ acb þecb;t ð4Þ
where D is the first difference operator (D Xt = Xt Xt-1); lnSalescb;t denotes the log-transformed sales in kg for brand b in
category c in week t, lnAdSpending cb;t is the log-transformed advertising gross spending in € for brand b in category c in week
t while ContentMeasurecbf ;t denotes the (log-transformed) consistency/commonality measure for brand b in category c in
week t for content dimension f. We further control for price per kg in € for brand b in category c in week t (lnPricecb;t Þ, total
within-category advertising spending11 by competitors of brand b in category c in week t (lnCompAdSpendingcb;t ), and season-
ality effects by using a seasonality index that captures the seasonal variation of category c in week t (lnSeasonalityc;t ). The sea-
sonality index takes an average value of 1, which indicates the average sales of the respective category. Thus, in weeks with
above-average category sales, seasonality takes a value above 1, and in weeks with below-average sales, seasonality takes a
value below 1.We further include a deterministic time trend Trendt measuring the time period, which runs from 1 in the first
observation to 174 in the last (Gijsenberg, 2017). As both the dependent variable and our focal independent variables are spec-
ified in natural logarithms, effects can be interpreted as elasticities.
Our main goal is to identify the short- and long-term sales effects of advertising content consistency/commonality. The
ECM separates these effects into two distinct sets of parameters. bST represents the short-term elasticity, which specifies an
immediate sales effect within a specific week owing to a temporary (one-time) change in the consistency/commonality mea-
sure. bLT indicates the long-term equilibrium relationship between consistency/commonality and sales. Since all of our vari-
ables are stationary, we interpret the long-term elasticities as a cumulative sales effect, including immediate (short-term)
and future effects on sales owing to a temporary (one-time) change in consistency/commonality (e.g., Gijsenberg, 2014).
Finally, the p parameter reflects the speed with which the adjustment to long-term equilibrium occurs,acb captures the fixed
effects for each brand, and ecbt represents the error term.
Price and advertising spending are two potential sources of endogeneity. If managers strategically allocate ads (e.g., on
the basis of expected sales), we could argue that advertising spending is endogenous, although for week-to-week advertising
expenditures endogeneity should not be a major concern (Bruce et al., 2020).12 However, price might be endogenous because
of omitted variables or because of dependence on unobserved demand increases (Ma et al., 2011). We therefore account for
price endogeneity by adopting a two-stage least squares approach using instrumental variables. In line with previous literature
(e.g., Bruce et al., 2020; Gijsenberg, 2014), we use as instruments the average prices of the other product categories in our data-
set. Our model is overidentified, so we can test the strength (Angrist–Pischke multivariate F-statistic) and validity (Sargan test)
of our instruments. The test results show that the instruments correlate with the endogenous variables (p-value of the F-
test < 0.05) and are exogenous with the error term of the focal brand (p > 0.10).
To test for temporal causality we performed the Dumitrescu and Hurlin (2012) panel Granger causality test allowing for
between-brand heterogeneity. Following Trusov, Bucklin, and Pauwels (2009) we run the causality tests for up to 13 lags and
report the results for the lag specification that has the highest significance for Granger causality (see Table 2). Results show
that all consistency and commonality measures (Granger) cause sales.
To judge how brand size affects the impact of consistency and commonality on sales, we classified brands as large and
small (large = 1, small = 0) by using a median split per category, based on the value market share (average market share
is equal to 0.09 and 0.04 for large and small brands respectively). With this approach, our sample consists of 12 small
and 21 large brands.13 We then add to our base model the interaction term of brand size and consistency/commonality:
10
As severe multicollinearity issues could be induced by simultaneous inclusion of both consistency and commonality for all four dimensions together with
their interactions with the brand size dummy for the moderation effects (as introduced in the full model) in both the short- and long-term part of the model, we
use a construct-by-construct approach per dimension and estimate six separate models.
11
We include competitive advertising for only the consistency models. For the commonality models, competitor advertising is already accounted for by the
commonality measure.
12
Recent research shows that a bad endogeneity correction (e.g., weak IVs) can worsen the problem (Rossi, 2014). We account for cross-sectional endogeneity
(e.g., certain brands systematically spending more on advertising) by including brand fixed effects.
13
A positive and significant correlation (r = 0.40) between size and brand age shows that larger brands are also older. It should also be noted that within the
studied time frame two brands experience an increase in market share that pushes them above the threshold (median). Thus, they move from small to large
brands. However, since they are among the small brands in most weeks, they remain in this category for our calculations. In a robustness check, we exclude
them from the model, and results remain largely the same.
9
Table 2
Results of the Dumitrescu and Hurlin panel Granger causality tests (minimum p-values across 13 lags).
Sales is Granger caused by Zbar-Stat. Prob.a

Consistency
Creativity 10.05 0.00
Infomativeness 9.46 0.00
Emotionality: Low arousal 8.64 0.00
Emotionality: High arousal 8.91 0.00
Commonality
Creativity 6.74 0.00
Infomativeness 6.40 0.00
Emotionality: Low arousal 8.91 0.00
Emotionality: High arousal 8.33 0.00
a
Sales is Granger caused by consistency for creativity at the 0.001 significance level. Note that the results are significant independent of the specific lag
specification.
DlnSalescb;t ¼ b0 þ bST
1 DlnPricecb;t þ b2 DlnCompetitorAdSpendcb;t þ b3 DlnSeasonalityc;t þ b4 DlnAdSpending cb;t
ST ST ST
5 DContentMeasurecbf ;t þ b6 DContentMeasurecbf ;t Sizecb

þ bST ST
LT
þ p lnSalescb;t1 b1 lnPricecb;t1 þ bLT LT
2 lnCompetitorAdSpendcb;t1 þ b3 lnSeasonalityc;t1

þ bLT LT LT
4 lnAdSpending cb;t1 þ b5 ContentMeasurecbf ;t1 þ b6 ContentMeasurecbf ;t1 Sizecb þ cTrendt þ acb þecb;t
ð5Þ
The main effects of consistency and commonality thus represent the effect for small brands, whereas the interaction
effect with the brand size dummy shows how the effect differs for large brands. Owing to the inclusion of fixed effects,
the main effect of size drops out.
5. Results and discussion
5.1. Model-free insights
Table 3 provides descriptive statistics for the consistency and commonality measures (before log-transformation), while
Table 4 and Table 5 display the correlation coefficients. The mean consistency values range from 0.84 to 0.96, indicating that
most brands are rather consistent in their advertising content. The minimum values (between 0.61 and 0.71), on the other
hand, imply that while at least some brands occasionally deviate from their advertising content strategy, no brand com-
pletely changes its advertising content from one week to the next. In terms of commonalities, we find that some brands
try to differentiate their ads from those of other brands. Especially in terms of the low-arousal emotionality dimension, most
ads are quite similar. We show further descriptive statistics such as histograms for the consistency and commonality mea-
sures as well as plots depicting the (creativity) consistency and commonality measures over time (before log-
transformation) in Web Appendix WAF.
5.2. Model-based insights
5.2.1. Model evaluation

Table 6, Table 7, and Table 8 report the results for the full models, including the moderating effect of brand size. Table 6
shows that, overall, the models perform well as indicated by the R2 and the geometric mean of the relative absolute error
(GMRAE),14 with minimum R2 values of 0.64 for the consistency models and 0.62 for the commonality models and maximum
average (median) GMRAE15 values of 0.35 (0.31) for the consistency models and 0.36 (0.31) for the commonality models, all well
below the critical value of 1. Coefficient estimates of the control variables given in Tables 7 and 8 also show strong face validity.
Across all models, we find a significant but small effect of ad spending on sales, with an immediate effect of 0.003 and an aver-
age long-term effect of about 0.016. These coefficients are in line with previous research (Gijsenberg, 2014; Guitart et al., 2020).
The coefficients of the other control variables such as price, competitor advertising, and seasonality are also consistent with
prior research (Hanssens, 2015).
To judge the relative in-sample versus out-of-sample performance of the models, we use the last 52 weeks of data as a
hold-out sample and re-estimate the model on the other weeks in the dataset. This split-sample analysis indicates good fore-
casting performance of the models, with a maximum average (median) in-sample GMRAE value of 0.35 (0.28) and out-of-
14
The dependent variable series, consisting of the first-differenced log-transformed volume sales, show both many values near zero and considerable
fluctuations. We therefore follow the recommendations by Armstrong (2001, p.277) and do not use quality/error measures for these series expressed in
percentages (e.g., MAPE).
15
We calculate GMRAE and MAPE values for each brand separately and report the average and median values for these measures.
10
Table 3
Consistency and commonality measures.
Mean Maximum Minimum Std. Dev.

Consistency
Informativeness 0.84 1 0.65 0.08
Emotionality: Low arousal 0.96 1 0.71 0.05
Emotionality: High arousal 0.94 1 0.67 0.05
Creativity 0.89 1 0.61 0.07
Commonality
Informativeness 0.72 1 0.41 0.13
Emotionality: Low arousal 0.90 1 0.46 0.10
Emotionality: High arousal 0.88 1 0.66 0.08
Creativity 0.78 1 0.29 0.12
Observations: 5742
Table 4
Correlation of consistency measures.
Informativeness Emotionality Creativity

Low arousal High arousal
Informativeness 1
Emotionality: Low arousal 0.08 1
Emotionality: High arousal 0.10 0.38 1
Creativity 0.22 0.64 0.75 1
Table 5
Correlation of commonality measures.

Informativeness 1
Emotionality: Low arousal 0.19 1
Emotionality: High arousal 0.02 0.45 1
Creativity 0.17 0.67 0.74 1
Table 6
Model performance.
Full sample Split sample

R2 GMRAE GMRAE MAPE
IS OOS IS OOS
Consistency
Informativeness 0.65 0.35 0.35 0.39 1.68% 1.93%
0.31 0.28 0.33 1.47% 1.89%
Emotionality: Low arousal 0.65 0.35 0.34 0.37 1.68% 1.93%
0.31 0.27 0.32 1.41% 1.88%
Emotionality: High arousal 0.65 0.35 0.35 0.38 1.69% 1.93%
0.29 0.27 0.31 1.41% 1.88%
Creativity 0.64 0.35 0.35 0.38 1.70% 1.94%
0.30 0.28 0.30 1.43% 1.88%
Commonality
Informativeness 0.62 0.36 0.36 0.39 1.80% 1.95%
0.31 0.29 0.30 1.56% 1.89%
Emotionality: Low arousal 0.63 0.36 0.35 0.38 1.76% 1.95%
0.31 0.29 0.32 1.56% 1.88%
Emotionality: High arousal 0.62 0.36 0.36 0.38 1.79% 1.95%
0.31 0.30 0.30 1.54% 1.88%
Creativity 0.62 0.36 0.35 0.39 1.78% 1.95%
0.31 0.29 0.31 1.54% 1.88%
IS: In-sample; OOS: Out-of-sample.
11
Table 7
Consistency model estimates.

Variable Coefficient S.E. Coefficient S.E. Coefficient S.E. Coefficient S.E.
Intercept 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01
Adjustment parameter 0.21 *** 0.04 0.21 *** 0.04 0.21 *** 0.04 0.20 *** 0.04
Price
Short-term 4.47 *** 0.32 4.47 *** 0.32 4.47 *** 0.32 4.48 *** 0.32
Long-term 4.71 *** 1.21 4.67 *** 1.20 4.66 *** 1.19 4.74 *** 1.23
Competitor advertising
Short-term 0.01 *** 0.00 0.01 *** 0.00 0.01 *** 0.00 0.01 *** 0.00
Long-term 0.02 *** 0.01 0.02 *** 0.01 0.02 *** 0.01 0.02 *** 0.01
Seasonality
Short-term 0.09 ** 0.04 0.09 *** 0.04 0.09 ** 0.04 0.09 ** 0.04
Long-term 0.20 0.14 0.17 0.14 -0.19 0.14 -0.20 0.14
Trend 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Advertising
Short-term 0.00 *** 0.00 0.00 *** 0.00 0.00 *** 0.00 0.00 *** 0.00
Long-term 0.02 *** 0.00 0.02 *** 0.00 0.02 *** 0.00 0.02 *** 0.00
Consistency
Short-term 0.34 0.42 2.02 2.98 0.35 1.30 0.47 0.76
Long-term 0.62 * 0.37 3.82 *** 1.46 2.26 ** 1.06 1.06 * 0.62
Consistency * Size
Short-term 0.33 0.52 1.00 3.14 0.22 1.52 0.09 0.88
Long-term 1.23 ** 0.56 5.63 *** 1.78 3.22 ** 1.31 1.76 ** 0.85
N 5709 5709 5709 5709

R2 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.64
*p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01.
Table 8
Commonality model estimates.

Variable Coefficient S.E. Coefficient S.E. Coefficient S.E. Coefficient S.E.
Intercept 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01
Adjustment parameter 0.20 *** 0.04 0.20 *** 0.04 0.20 *** 0.04 0.20 *** 0.04
Price
Short-term 4.59 *** 0.34 4.57 *** 0.34 4.58 *** 0.34 4.58 *** 0.34
Long-term 5.10 *** 1.41 4.96 *** 1.36 5.04 *** 1.39 5.06 *** 1.39
Seasonality
Short-term 0.08 ** 0.04 0.09 ** 0.04 0.08 ** 0.04 0.08 ** 0.04
Long-term 0.14 0.15 0.13 0.15 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.15
Trend 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Advertising
Short-term 0.00 *** 0.00 0.00 *** 0.00 0.00 *** 0.00 0.00 *** 0.00
Long-term 0.02 *** 0.00 0.02 *** 0.00 0.02 *** 0.00 0.02 *** 0.00
Commonality
Short-term 0.15 * 0.08 0.04 0.53 0.01 0.28 0.10 0.17
Long-term 0.42 * 0.24 1.08 * 0.60 0.65 0.75 1.07 ** 0.44
Commonality * Size
Short-term 0.16 0.11 0.21 0.59 0.01 0.35 0.15 0.20
Long-term 0.56 * 0.30 1.58 ** 0.70 1.09 0.85 1.23 ** 0.53
N 5709 5709 5709 5709

R2 0.62 0.63 0.62 0.62
*p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01.
12
sample GMRAE value of 0.39 (0.33) for the consistency models and a maximum average (median) in-sample GMRAE value of
0.36 (0.30) and out-of-sample GMRAE value of 0.39 (0.31) for the commonality models.
Using the predicted first differences in the sales series, we can reconstruct the associated (predicted) sales-level series.
We use a so-called static forecast in which we use the predicted sales level in the previous period and do not allow for
weekly updating with the observed sales level in the previous period. This split-sample analysis shows excellent perfor-
mance in terms of the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), in terms of both the maximum average (median) in-
sample MAPE of 1.70% (1.47%) and the out-of-sample MAPE of 1.94% (1.89%) for the consistency models, and of the maxi-
mum average (median) in-sample MAPE of 1.80% (1.56%) and out-of-sample MAPE of 1.95% (1.89%) for the commonality
models.
5.2.2. Consistency insights

Table 7 presents the results of the consistency models. Overall, our results show that consistency matters, although only
in the long run.
While we find insignificant immediate effects for all four content dimensions, most of the long-term effects are signifi-
cant. Recall that since we use a dummy variable as moderator, we can interpret the main effect as the effect for smaller,
lesser-known brands and the interaction effect as the difference in the effect for large brands relative to small brands. For
small brands, we find a significant positive effect of consistency for low-arousal emotionality (bLT ¼ 3:82; p < 0:01Þ and
high-arousal emotionality ðbLT ¼ 2:26; p < 0:05Þ as well as marginal significant effects for informativeness
ðbLT ¼ 0:62; p < 0:10Þ and creativityðbLT ¼ 1:06; p < 0:10Þ, in support of H1. Thus, small brands that have yet to build a clear
brand image and positioning in the minds of consumers benefit from consistent advertising, especially when it comes to
emotionality. This finding is in line with the results of prior work suggesting that preserving the brand essence is especially
important for smaller, less known brands (Becker et al., 2019). Small brands are thereby especially helped by consistency in
the more subjective ‘‘feeling” aspects, as these aspects are more likely to create a personal bond with the brand than the
more rational aspects of the brand.
In contrast, for larger brands we find a significant reduction in the positive effect of consistency for all four content
dimensions, in support of H2. Thus, for brands with an established brand image, consumers might perceive consistency
as boring, so these brands benefit more from capturing consumer attention by varying their advertising content. Interest-
ingly, of the four advertising content dimensions, low-arousal emotionality shows the strongest consistency effect (for small
brands) and the greatest difference in effect between small and large brandsðbLT ¼ 5:63; p < 0:01Þ. Conceivably, overall
brands tend to be consistent with regard to this dimension (see Table 3), and an ad that is inconsistent in terms of emotion-
ality could be particularly surprising and thus attract the most attention.
5.2.3. Commonality insights

How brands position their advertising content relative to their competitors’ ads—commonality—also matters (see Table 8).
Our results indicate that small brands should position themselves close to competitors to match the product category.
Specifically, we find a significant positive long-term effect for creativity ðbLT ¼ 1:07; p < 0:05Þ and marginally significant
long-term effects for low-arousal emotionality ( bLT ¼ 1:08; p < 0:10Þ and informativeness ( bLT ¼ 0:42; p < 0:10Þ, but not
for high-arousal emotionality. In partial support of H3, this result implies that the best strategy for small brands is to mimic
their competitors. Similar advertising content should help consumers correctly identify the small brand as a member of the
category and compare it to the other brands in the category to identify important points of differentiation and parity (Lee &
Lee, 2011).
However, for large brands, the picture looks vastly different. For large brands, the positive long-term effects of common-
ality are strongly mitigated, and likely even fully cancelled. This effect seems to be true for all content dimensions except
high-arousal information, for which commonalty is less important, thus partially supporting H4.
5.2.4. Overall insights

In summary, the results show that smaller brands should remain consistent across their advertising and close to their
competitors. For larger brands, the positive effects of consistency and commonality are significantly reduced. Our results
thus show, first, that not only the type of content (e.g., emotional vs. informational) but also temporal (consistency) and com-
petitor (commonality) effects matter, and second, that these effects differ by brand size. Managers should thus take these
effects into account when designing their advertising.
5.3. The role of brand size specification
To test the robustness of our results, we estimated the model using a different operationalization for brand size. Instead of
a dummy variable based on the brand’s value market share, we used the relative weighted retail distribution of the brand as
a proxy for brand size, in line with our argument that larger brands are more visible owing to, for example, a stronger dis-
tribution. Specifically, we divided the average weighted retail distribution of brand b by the mean retail distribution of the
respective category and added the interaction term between the new brand size measure and the content dimension to the
model. To facilitate interpretation of the outcomes, we mean-centered all variables before the estimation. The results remain
13
largely the same as for our initial model (see Web Appendix WAH). We find no significant main effects, but all interaction
effects are significant and negative, implying that although consistency and commonality might be helpful for small brands,
they hurt brand performance for larger brands.
6. Conclusion and managerial implications
6.1. Summary
Both scholars and practitioners commonly accept that strong, successful brands are built on consistent, unique position-
ing, which should be reflected in the brand’s choices relative to advertising. However, little empirical evidence supports this
claim, especially with respect to advertising content. In this study we are the first to provide a broad systematic empirical
investigation on the impact of consistency and commonality in advertising content on brands’ sales. We therefore develop
detailed, dynamic measures of consistency and commonality taking into account well-known factors such as relative weight
and ad decay. Insights are based on the analysis of the content of 247 television ads of 33 brands from the German CPG mar-
ket across almost four years.
Our results show that consistency and commonality in advertising content both have a major impact on brands’ sales,
especially in the long run. In the short run, brands do not benefit from content consistency, and although small brands imme-
diately benefit from commonality in the level of informativeness of their advertising, this effect is reduced for larger brands.
In the long run, brands’ cumulative sales show much stronger effects of consistency and commonality, with clear differ-
ences between small and large brands. While small brands show strong positive cumulative sales effects from consistency in
the ‘‘feeling” aspects of low- and high-arousal emotionality, large brands experience a considerable downward adjustment of
the consistency effects on sales, regardless of whether consistency lies in informativeness, low- and high-arousal emotion-
ality, or creativity. Similarly, while small brands benefit in terms of cumulative sales from commonality in informativeness,
low-arousal emotionality and creativity, large brands undergo a considerable downward adjustment of the commonality
effects, regardless of the content dimension.
These insights extend and generalize the findings of Pauwels et al. (2022) on the effects of consistency over time in car
brands’ advertising messages and the role of small (young) brands versus large (old) brands to consistency over time in
brands’ advertising content for six CPG categories. Smaller brands thereby benefit from consistency in terms of higher sales,
not only when it comes to their advertising message (the what of advertising) but also when it comes to their advertising
content (the how of advertising). Larger brands, on the other hand, do not benefit and can even suffer from such consistency
over time as greater consistency will lead to lower sales. We further extend prior literature by providing insights on the
effects of commonality, which to the best of knowledge has not yet been investigated. The insights from our study on con-
sistency and commonality in advertising content also add to the understanding of the effect of creativity in advertising on
behavioral outcomes like sales, an area that is still largely under-investigated (Rosengren et al., 2020).
6.2. Managerial implications
Our analyses indicate the importance to sales of both consistency and commonality in advertising content—especially in
the long run—and that effects differ significantly for small versus large brands. While the long-term cumulative effect sizes of
consistency and commonality for small brands are provided by the main effects shown in the tables, we can calculate the
actual effect sizes and significance for large brands by combining the main effects and the interaction effects from the tables.
Figs. 2 and 3 depict the resulting long-term cumulative consistency and commonality elasticities for both types of brands.
First, as noted earlier, small brands benefit from consistency, which is in line with managers’ beliefs: ‘‘Younger brands
need to build up a brand first and thus be more consistent” (Web Appendix WAB). This effect is especially large for low-
and high-arousal emotionality. Increases of 1% in low- and high-arousal emotional consistency will have positive cumulative
sales impacts of 3.82% and 2.26%, respectively. These values indicate that for small CPG brands, consistent advertising con-
tent may be a much stronger (and much cheaper) driver of sales than advertising spending, given regular advertising spend-
ing (long-term) elasticities of less than 0.05 (increases of 1% in spending result in positive cumulative sales effects of less
than 0.05%; Gijsenberg, 2014; Guitart et al., 2020). These brands also benefit from tying their advertising content to the cat-
egory standards regarding all content dimensions besides high-arousal emotionality. Increases of 1% in these types of com-
monality will have a positive cumulative sales impact of 0.42%, 1.08%, and 1.07% for informative, low-arousal emotional, and
creative content respectively. Establishing the brand as belonging to the category thus appears to be an effective driver of
sales for these smaller brands. This finding opposes common managerial belief that ‘‘small or large – all brands should just
stand out and be different” (Web Appendix WAB). Our results show that in the brand-building phase, new brands—which are
by definition small brands—are likely to be most successful when they focus on a consistent advertising content that does
not deviate much from what the others are doing. However, they have the greatest leeway regarding their actual content-
level choice in the dimension of high-arousal emotionality—as commonality in that aspect has no significant effect.
Second, large, established brands face a different situation. These brands are mostly urged to be dynamic in terms of tem-
poral dynamics, which goes against common wisdom that ‘‘consistency is key” for all brands. Indeed, increases of 1% in con-
sistency of informativeness, low-arousal emotionality, and creativity will have negative cumulative sales impacts of 0.60%,
14
Fig. 2. Long-term consistency effects for small and large brands.

Note: The dark bars indicate significant elasticities (using bold font), while the transparent bars indicate non-significant elasticities (using italic font), both
at the 10% level.
Fig. 3. Long-term commonality effects for small and large brands.

Note: The dark bars indicate significant elasticities (using bold font), while the transparent bars indicate non-significant elasticities (using italic font), both
at the 10% level.
1.82%, and 0.70%, respectively. Large CPG brands may therefore at least partially cancel positive sales outcomes of increased
advertising spending by insufficiently varying the actual content of their advertising over time. Competitive dynamics are,
however, less important as these brands are less affected by competitor advertising. That is, consumers already know that
they are an established member of the category, hence, they do not benefit from being similar to competitors. On the other
hand, as these ‘‘leading” brands already stand for themselves, similar content does not lead to confusion between brands,
going against managers’ belief that ‘‘large brands should avoid being similar to the competition to maintain their uniqueness
and competitive advantage” (Web Appendix WAB). Thus, large brands will be most successful when they differ and surprise
in their advertising content over time, but they will not have to worry about the advertising of their competitors. Thus, once
established, brands should alter their advertising content strategy from that of the building phase. They thereby enjoy more
freedom in their ad content design.
Third, important for all brands is the fact that both the consistency and commonality elasticities make an abstraction of
the actual level of the different advertising content dimensions. Small brands can benefit from increased consistency in their
content at both a high and a low level of the different dimensions. The brands can decide on the basis of their positioning
strategy what levels of informativeness, low- and high-arousal emotionality, and creativity fit best and then maintain that
level. Similarly, small brands can benefit from increased commonality in their content at a high and low level of the different
dimensions. The brand has to determine the specific levels of informativeness, low-arousal emotionality, and creativity that
prevail in its specific category and position itself accordingly. Large brands should vary their content over time, exploring
high and low levels of the different dimensions. By doing so, they will also likely deviate more from the category’s standard
levels of informativeness, low- and high-arousal emotionality, and creativity, regardless of whether these are high or low
even though commonality is less important for large brands.
15
6.3. Future research
Our study comprises the first systematic empirical investigation of the impact on brands’ sales of consistency and com-
monality in advertising content. A set of intriguing findings partly confirm and partly contradict commonly held beliefs on
advertising content strategies, suggesting avenues for future research.
First, our study focuses on television advertising. Expanding the setting to other advertising channels, including online
media, could powerfully broaden the insights. Future research could extend the analyses by examining possible differences
in sales effects of content consistency and commonality across media, taking into account brands’ fully integrated marketing
communication mix (e.g., Naik & Raman, 2003).
Second, our research was limited to national brands and did not include private-label products, which today account for a
large part of the CPG market. Extending the analyses to private-label advertising could be fruitful, especially as private-label
advertising conventionally focuses on the retailer brand and is more generic across categories, limiting possible commonal-
ity. In addition, recent trends are toward the development of multiple private-label tiers (e.g., Geyskens et al., 2010), which
could result in new, more category-specific advertising strategies, especially for premium private labels that are positioned
as direct competitors to national (A) brands.
Third, we analyzed the content of brand-initiated advertising commercials. However, retailers often feature national
brands in their advertising, for instance to support temporary price promotions on these products (e.g., Guyt &
Gijsbrechts, 2014). Such retailer-initiated content likely differs markedly from the content of brand-initiated advertising.
Investigating the extent to which such retailer-initiated advertising affects consistency and commonality and their effects
on sales could provide useful insights for brand managers negotiating with retailers on promotional support.
Finally, future research could extend the analysis beyond CPG brands to include durables and services. Cars, consumer
electronics, and telecom, for instance, are all industries known to be highly competitive in terms of advertising. Much adver-
tising in these industries is clearly directed to building uniquely positioned brands, and brands actively use advertising to
reposition themselves, as in the ‘‘advertising-up” phenomenon (Guitart et al., 2018), thereby also adjusting their advertising
message over time to stay in touch with a changing market (Pauwels et al., 2022). While insights from investigation of the
over-time consistency in car brands’ advertising message provide a first hint that our findings are likely generalizable across
industries, broadening the view to more industries will foster our understanding of whether and when consistency and com-
monality in advertising content are helping or hurting brands.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2022.05.004.
References
Aaker, D. A. (2012). Building strong brands. Simon and Schuster.

Alba, J. W., Hutchinson, J. W., & Lynch, J. G. (1991). Memory and Decision Making. In Handbook of Consumer Behavior (pp. 1–49). Prentice Hall.
Albrecht, J. E., & Myers, J. L. (1995). Role of context in accessing distant information during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 21(6), 1459–1468.
Albrecht, J. E., & Myers, J. L. (1998). Accessing distant text information during reading: Effects of contextual cues. Discourse Processes, 26(2), 87–107. https://
doi.org/10.1080/01638539809545040.
Allenby, G., & Hanssens, D. M. (2005). Advertising Response (Special Report (05-200)).
Anderson, J. R. (1983). A spreading activation theory of memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22(3), 261–295.
Aravindakshan, A., & Naik, P. A. (2011). How does awareness evolve when advertising stops? The role of memory. Marketing Letters, 22(3), 315–326. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11002-010-9127-9.
Armstrong, J. S. (2001). Principles of forecasting: A handbook for researchers and practitioners. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bagozzi, R. P., Gopinath, M., & Nyer, P. U. (1999). The role of emotions in marketing. Jounal of Academic Marketing Science, 27(2), 184–206.
Becker, M., Wiegand, N., & Reinartz, W. J. (2019). Does it pay to be real? Understanding authenticity in TV advertising. Journal of Marketing, 83(1), 24–50.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242918815880.
Belch, G. E., & Belch, M. A. (2017). Advertising and promotion: An integrated marketing communications perspective (11th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Berger, J., & Packard, G. (2018). Are atypical things more popular? Psychological Science, 29(7), 1178–1184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618759465.
Brown, S., Kozinets, R. V., & Sherry, J. F. Jr, (2003). Teaching old brands new tricks: Retro branding and the revival of. Journal of Marketing, 67(3), 19–33.
Bruce, N. I., Becker, M., & Reinartz, W. (2020). Communicating brands in television advertising. Journal of Marketing Research, 57(2), 236–256. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0022243719892576.
Burke, R. R., & Srull, T. K. (1988). Competitive interference and consumer memory for advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(1), 55–67. https://doi.org/
10.1086/209145.
Campbell, M. C., & Keller, K. L. (2003). Brand familiarity and advertising repetition effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 292–304.
Chandy, R. K., Tellis, G. J., Macinnis, D. J., & Thaivanich, P. (2001). What to say when: Advertising appeals in evolving markets. Journal of Marketing Research,
38(4), 399–414.
Dall’Olio, Filippo. Vakratsas, D. (2022). The Impact of Advertising Creative Strategy on Advertising Elasticity. Journal of Marketing, forthcoming.
Danaher, P. J., Bonfrer, A., & Dhar, S. (2008). The effect of competitive advertising interference on sales for packaged goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 45
(2), 211–225. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.45.2.211.
Donthu, N. (1994). Double jeopardy in televidion program choice. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(2), 180–185.
Du, R. Y., Xu, L., & Wilbur, K. C. (2019). Immediate responses of online brand search and price search to TV Ads. Journal of Marketing, 83(4), 81–100. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0022242919847192.
Dumitrescu, E. I., & Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling, 29(4), 1450–1460. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.econmod.2012.02.014.
Eastlack, J. O., & Rao, A. G. (1989). Advertising experiments at the Campbell Soup Company. Marketing Science, 8(1), 57–71.
16
Edell, J. A., & Burke, M. C. (1987). The power of feelings in understanding advertising effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(December), 421–433.
Eisend, M. (2009). A meta-analysis of humor in advertising. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37(2), 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-
008-0096-y.
Farris, P. W., & West, D. (2007). A fresh view of the advertising budget process. In G. J. Tellis & T. Ambler (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Advertising. SAGE
Publications.
Geyskens, I., Gielens, K., & Gijsbrechts, E. (2010). Proliferating private-label portfolios: How introducing economy and premium private labels influences
brand choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(5), 791–807.
Gijsenberg, M. J. (2014). Going for gold: Investigating the (non)sense of increased advertising around major sports events. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 31(1), 2–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2013.09.004.
Gijsenberg, M. J. (2017). Riding the waves: Revealing the impact of intrayear category demand cycles on advertising and pricing effectiveness. Journal of
Marketing Research, 54(2), 171–186. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.14.0576.
Gijsenberg, M. J., & Nijs, V. R. (2019). Advertising spending patterns and competitor impact. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 36(2), 232–250.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2018.11.004.
Givon, M., & Horsky, D. (1990). Untangling the effects of purchase reinforcement and advertising carryover. Marketing Science, 9(2), 171–187.
Goldenberg, J., & Mazursky, D. (2007). Advertising creativity: Balancing suprise and regularity. In G. T. Tellis & T. Ambler (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of
Advertising (pp. 283–298). SAGE Publications.
Griskevicius, V., Goldstein, N., Mortensen, C., Sundie, J., Cialdini, R., & Kenrick, D. (2009). Fear and loving in Las Vegas: Evolution, emotion, and persuasion.
Journal of Marketing Research, 46(3), 384–395. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.46.3.384.
Guitart, I. A., Gonzalez, J., & Stremersch, S. (2018). Advertising non-premium products as if they were premium: The impact of advertising up on advertising
elasticity and brand equity. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 35(3), 471–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2018.03.004.
Guitart, I. A., Hervet, G., & Gelper, S. (2020). Competitive advertising strategies for programmatic television. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48
(4), 753–775. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-019-00691-5.
Guitart, I. A., & Stremersch, S. (2020). The impact of informational and emotional television ad content on online search and sales 002224372096250. Journal
of Marketing Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243720962505.
Guyt, J. Y., & Gijsbrechts, E. (2014). Take turns or March in sync? The impact of the national brand promotion calendar on manufacturer and retailer
performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(6), 753–772.
Hanssens, D. M. (2015). Empirical generalizations about marketing impact. Marketing Science Institute.
Jewell, R. D., & Unnava, H. R. A. O. (2003). When competitive interference can be beneficial. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 283–291.
Keller, K. L. (1987). Memory factors in advertising: The effect of advertising retrieval cues on brand evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3),
316–332. https://doi.org/10.1086/209116.
Keller, K. L. (1991). Memory and evaluation effects in competitive advertising environments. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 463–475. https://doi.org/
10.1086/208571.
Keller, K. L. (2008). Strategic Brand Management (3rd ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.
Kent, R. J. (1997). How ad claim similarity and target brand familiarity moderate competitive interference effects in memory for advertising. Journal of
Marketing Communications, 3(4), 231–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/135272697345916.
Kent, R. J., & Allen, C. T. (1993). Does competitive clutter in television advertising ‘‘Interfere” with the recall and recognition of brand names and Ad claims?
Marketing Letters, 4(2), 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00994075.
Kent, R. J., & Allen, C. T. (1994). Competitive interference effects in consumer memory for advertising: The role of brand familiarity. Journal of Marketing, 58
(3), 97–105. https://doi.org/10.2307/1252313.
Koslow, S., Sasser, S. L., & Riordan, E. A. (2003). What is creative to whom and why? Perceptions in advertising agencies. Journal of Advertising Research, 43(1),
96–110. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021849903030113.
Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. SAGE Publications.
Kumar, A. (2000). Interference effects of contextual cues in advertisements on memory for Ad content. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(3), 155–166.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0903_3.
Kumar, A., & Krishnan, S. (2004). Memory interference in advertising: A replication and extension. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(4), 602–611. https://doi.
org/10.1086/380292.
Lee, B.-K., & Lee, W.-N. (2011). Understanding the acceptance of mobile SMS advertising among young Chinese consumers. Psychology & Marketing, 30(6),
461–469. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.
Levin, A., Lin, C. F., & Chu, C. S. J. (2002). Unit root tests in panel data: Asymptotic and finite-sample properties. Journal of Econometrics, 108(1), 1–24. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(01)00098-7.
Liaukonyte, J., Teixeira, T., & Wilbur, K. C. (2015). Television advertising and online shopping. Marketing Science, 34(3), 311–330. https://doi.org/10.1287/
mksc.2014.0899.
Lodish, L. M., Abraham, M., Kalmenson, S., Livelsberger, J., Lubetkin, B., Richardson, B., & Stevens, M. E. (1995). How TV advertising works: A meta-analysis of
389 real world split cable T.V. advertising experiments. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(2), 125–139.
Lynch, J. G., & Srull, T. K. (1982). Memory and attentional factors in consumer choice: Concepts and research methods. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(June),
18–37.
Ma, Y., Ailawadi, K. L., Gauri, D. K., & Grewal, D. (2011). An empirical investigation of the impact of gasoline prices on grocery shopping behavior. Journal of
Marketing, 75(2), 18–35. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.75.2.18.
Machleit, K. A., Allen, C. T., & Madden, T. J. (1993). The mature brand and brand interest: An alternative consequence of Ad-Evoked affect. Journal of
Marketing, 57(4), 72–82.
MacInnis, D. J., Rao, A. G., & Weiss, A. M. (2002). Assessing when increased media weight of real-world advertisements helps sales. Journal of Marketing
Research, 39(4), 391–407.
Mafael, A., Raithel, S., Taylor, C. R., & Stewart, D. W. (2021). Measuring the role of uniqueness and consistency to develop effective advertising. Journal of
Advertising, 50(4), 494–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2021.1883488.
Modig, E., & Dahlen, M. (2020). Quantifying the advertising-creativity assessments of consumers versus advertising professionals does it matter whom you
ask? Journal of Advertising Research, 60(3), 324–336. https://doi.org/10.2501/JAR-2019-009.
Montgomery, N. V., & Unnava, R. H. (2007). The role of consumer memory in advertising. In G. J. Tellis & T. Ambler (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Advertising
(pp. 105–119). Sage Publications.
Naik, P. A., Mantrala, M. K., & Sawyer, A. G. (1998). Planning media schedules in the presence of dynamic advertising quality. Marketing Science, 17(3),
214–235. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.17.3.214.
Naik, P. A., & Raman, K. (2003). Understanding the impact of synergy in multimedia communications. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(4), 375–388.
Nairne, J. S. (2002). Remembering over the short term: The case against the standard model. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 53–81.
Nielsen, J. H., Shapiro, S. A., & Mason, C. H. (2010). Emotionality and semantic onsets: Exploring orienting attention responses in advertising. Journal of
Marketing Research, 47(6), 1138–1150. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.47.6.1138.
Nyilasy, G., & Reid, L. N. (2009). Agency practitioner theories of how advertising works. Journal of Advertising, 38(3), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.2753/
JOA0091-3367380306.
Pauwels, K., Bharat, S., Fisher, S., & Antia, K. (2022). Should you change your ad messaging or execution? It depends on brand age. Applied Marketing
Analytics, 8(1). in press.
17
Pieters, R., Warlop, L., & Wedel, M. (2002). Breaking through the clutter: Benefits of advertisement originality and familiarity for brand attention and
memory. Management Science, 48(6), 765–781. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.48.6.765.192.
Pieters, R., Wedel, M., & Zhang, J. (2007). Optimal feature advertising design under competitive clutter. Management Science, 53(11), 1815–1828. https://doi.
org/10.1287/mnsc.1070.0732.
Poiesz, T. B. C., & Verhallen, T. M. M. (1989). Brand confusion in advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 8(3), 231–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02650487.1989.11107108.
Posavac, S. S., Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Cronley, M. L., & Kardes, F. R. (2001). The effects of strengthening category-brand associations on consideration set
composition and purchase intent in memory-based choice. Advances in Consumer Research, 28, 186–189.
Reinartz, W. J., & Saffert, P. (2013). Creativity in advertising. Havard Business Review, 91(6), 107–112. https://doi.org/10.1353/asr.2011.0006.
Rosengren, S., Eisend, M., Koslow, S., & Dahlen, M. (2020). A meta-analysis of when and how advertising creativity works. Journal of Marketing, 84(6), 39–56.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242920929288.
Rossi, P. E. (2014). Even the rich can make themselves poor: A critical examination of IV methods in marketing applications. Marketing Science, 33(5),
655–672.
Rossiter, J. R., & Bellman, S. (2005). Marketing Communications: Theory and Applications. Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Saenger, C., Jewell, R. D., & Grigsby, J. L. (2017). The strategic use of contextual and competitive interference to influence brand-attribute associations.
Journal of Advertising, 46(3), 424–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2017.1281776.
Schweidel, D. A., Bradlow, E. T., & Williams, P. (2006). A feature-based approach to assessing advertisement similarity. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(2),
237–243. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.43.2.237.
Sethuraman, R., Tellis, G. J., & Briesch, R. (2011). How well does advertising work? Generalizations from a meta-analysis of brand advertising elasticity.
Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3), 457–471.
Simpson, J. (2017). Finding brand success in the digital world. Forbes https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesagencycouncil/2017/08/25/finding-brand-
success-in-the-digital-world/?sh=1234491a626e.
Smith, R. E., Mackenzie, S. B., Yang, X., Buchholz, L. M., & Darley, W. K. (2007). Advertising modeling the determinants and effects of creativity in advertising.
Marketing Science, 26(6), 819–833. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1070.0272.
Srull, T. K. (1983). The role of prior knowledge in the acquisition, retention, and use of new information. In R. P. Bagozzi, A. M. Tybout, & A. Abor (Eds.),
Advances in Consumer Research (10th ed.,, pp. 572–576). Association for Consumer Research.
Steenkamp, J. B. E. M., Nijs, V. R., Hanssens, D. M., & Dekimpe, M. G. (2005). Competitive reactions to advertising and promotion attacks. Marketing Science, 24
(1), 35–54. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1040.0069.
Teixeira, T., Picard, R., & el Kaliouby, R. (2014). Why, when, and how much to entertain consumers in advertisements? A web-based facial tracking field
study. Marketing Science, 33(6), 809–827. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2014.0854.
Teixeira, T., Picard, R., Kaliouby, R., Picard, R., & Kaliouby, R. (2014). Why, when, and how much to entertain consumers in why, when, and how much to
entertain consumers in advertisements? A web-based facial tracking field study. Marketing Science, 33(6), 809–827.
Teixeira, T., Wedel, M., & Pieters, R. (2012). Emotion-Induced Engagement in Internet Video Advertisements. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(2), 144–159.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.10.0207.
Tellis, G. J. (2004). Effective Advertising: Understanding When, How, and Why Advertising Works. Sage Publications.
Tellis, G. J., MacInnis, D. J., Tirunillai, S., & Zhang, Y. (2019). What Drives Virality (Sharing) of Online Digital Content? The Critical Role of Information,
Emotion, and Brand Prominence. Journal of Marketing, 83(4), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022242919841034.
Trusov, M., Bucklin, R. E., & Pauwels, K. (2009). Effects of word-of-mouth versus traditional marketing: Findings from an internet social networking site.
Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 90–102. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.5.90.
Van Heerde, H. J., Srinivasan, S., & Dekimpe, M. G. (2010). Estimating cannibalization rates for pioneering innovations. Marketing Science, 29(6), 1024–1039.
https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1100.0575.
Van Horen, F., & Pieters, R. (2012). When high-similarity copycats lose and moderate-similarity copycats gain: The impact of comparative evaluation.
Journal of Marketing Research, 49(1), 83–91.
Vande Kamp, P. R., & Kaiser, H. M. (1999). Irreversibility in Advertising Demand Response Functions: An Application to Milk. American Journal of Agricultural
Economics, 81(2), 385–396. https://doi.org/10.2307/1244589.
Wyer, R. S. (2004). The Cognitive Organization and Use of General Knowledge. In J. T. Jost, M. R. Banaj, & D. A. Prentice (Eds.), APA science series. APA decade of
behavior series. Perspectivism in social psychology: The yin and yang of scientific progress (pp. 97–112). American Psychological Association.
Wyer, R. S., & Srull, T. K. (1986). Human cognition in its social context. Psychology Review, 93(3), 322–359. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.3.322.
Yaveroglu, I., Donthu, N., Journal, S., & Summer, N. (2008). Advertising repetition and placement issues in on-line environments. Journal of Advertising, 37(2),
31–43. https://doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367370203.
Zielske, H. A. (1959). The remembering and forgetting of advertising. Journal of Marketing, 23(3), 239–243.
18

1 s2.0 S0167811622000465 Main

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S0167811622000465 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Research in Marketing xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Research in Marketing

Consistency and commonality in advertising content: Helping

2. Literature review and hypotheses derivation

2.1. Role of advertising content

2.2. Consistency in advertising content

2.3. Commonality in advertising content

Fig. 1. Advertising of different perfume brands.

2.4. Differences between small and large brands

2.4.1. Brand size and consistency

2.4.2. Brand size and commonality

3.1. Market data

3.2. Advertising content measures

3.2.2. Coding procedure

4.1. Judging content consistency and commonality

4.2. Advertising response model

Sales is Granger caused by Zbar-Stat. Prob.a

5 DContentMeasurecbf ;t þ b6 DContentMeasurecbf ;t Sizecb

5. Results and discussion

5.1. Model-free insights

5.2. Model-based insights

5.2.1. Model evaluation

Mean Maximum Minimum Std. Dev.

Informativeness Emotionality Creativity

Informativeness Emotionality Creativity

Full sample Split sample

IS: In-sample; OOS: Out-of-sample.

Informativeness Emotionality Creativity

Trend 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

N 5709 5709 5709 5709

*p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01.

Informativeness Emotionality Creativity

Trend 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

N 5709 5709 5709 5709

*p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01.

5.2.2. Consistency insights

5.2.3. Commonality insights

5.2.4. Overall insights

5.3. The role of brand size specification

6. Conclusion and managerial implications

6.2. Managerial implications

Fig. 2. Long-term consistency effects for small and large brands.

Fig. 3. Long-term commonality effects for small and large brands.

6.3. Future research

Appendix A. Supplementary material

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2022.05.004.

Aaker, D. A. (2012). Building strong brands. Simon and Schuster.

You might also like

p < 0.1, p < 0.05, p < 0.01.

p < 0.1, p < 0.05, p < 0.01.