Brand Trial After a Credibility Change

In most frequently purchased, branded product markets, the consumer has little to choose from in terms of significantly differentiated products. The staggering array of manufacturers' claims and counter claims of brand superiority seems to leave consumers somewhat bewildered or cynical. What would happen if the credibility of the appeals made on behalf of one brand should suddenly be enhanced by a seemingly legitimate authority? More specifically, what would characterize consumers who would respond to such a change in credibility? Comments Postprint version. Published in Journal of Advertising Research, Volume 10, Issue 5, October 1970, pages 26-32. Publisher URL: http://www.arfsite.org/Webpages/JAR%5Fpages/jarhome.htm This journal article is available at ScholarlyCommons: http://repository.upenn.edu/marketing_papers/97 Published in Journal of Advertising Research, 10 (5), 1970, 26-32. Brand Trial After a Credibility Change David B. Montgomery J. Scott Armstrong In most frequently purchased, branded product markets, the consumer has little to choose from in terms of significantly differentiated products. The staggering array of manufacturers’ claims and counter claims of brand superiority seems to leave consumers somewhat bewildered or cynical. What would happen if the credibility of the appeals made on behalf of one brand should suddenly be enhanced by a seemingly legitimate authority? More specifically, what would characterize consumers who would respond to such a change in credibility? The American Dental Association (ADA.)’s endorsement of Crest on August 1, 1960 provides an example. The endorsement received widespread coverage. Procter and Gamble used full-page newspaper ads in several hundred markets to thank the ADA for its contribution to public service. The joint product of heavy P&G advertising and legitimization of the brand appeal by the ADA was a dramatic gain in market share for Crest from about 12 percent in July 1960 to about 35 percent in the period after the endorsement. This gain came at the expense of virtually every brand, and it came in spite of heavy dealing activity by other brands. Thus, the dentifrice market during the period provides a case example of consumer behavior in a market undergoing substantial change. The objectives of this study are two-fold. The first is an initial evaluation of a class of consumer panel measurements which might provide diagnostic information about market response as well as new bases for market segmentation. Data are from a social-psychological questionnaire which was designed specifically to measure several aspects of consumer behavior and which was administered to nearly 4,000 housewives in MRCA’s National Consumer Panel about three months prior to the ADA endorsement. This questionnaire gathered data on buyers’ self-designated interest and opinion leadership on a rather broad rang of topics. It also asked the buyer to assess her likely response to seven hypothetical, but plausible, new products on a scale from “try immediately” to “never try.” Data were also gathered on media habits and preferences, and social contacts. Should these measures prove useful, commercial panel operators might find it profitable to provide these measures on a continuing basis. The second objective was to see whether it would be possible to specify, by prior reasoning, certain salient characteristics of consumers who responded to the Crest endorsement. This study represents an extension of the work first reported in Montgomery and Armstrong (1968). Prior Theory Even though its basic formulation did not change, Crest was probably viewed as “new” by much of the market subsequent to the endorsement in that it now had a major additional product attribute – a claim of decay prevention legitimated by a highly credible source. The notion that Crest was probably viewed as “new” subsequent to the endorsement led to the possibility that the literature on the diffusion of innovations might yield useful insights in constructing a prior model. Since interest was centered upon response change resulting from the legitimization of the brand appeal, only those buyers who were not Crest purchasers in the period immediately preceding the endorsement were considered in this study.