Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Does competitive clutter in television advertising “interfere” with the recall and recognition of brand names and ad claims?

  • Published:
Marketing Letters Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper contrasts the effects of competitive clutter on the recall and recognition of information from ads for familiar brands. An experiment was conducted utilizing ads for the type of relatively familiar brands typically advertised on network television; the dependent variables were recall and recognition of brand names and ad claims. Results showed that brand name recall scores were substantially reduced by competitive clutter. However, exposure to competitors' ads had little effect on ad claim recall. These data are consistent with the view that information about familiar brands will tend to be compartmentalized in memory, reducing interference effects in attribute recall. Exposure to competitive clutter had relatively little effect on recognition task performance. Suggestions for future advertising research considering competitive interference and brand familiarity issues are provided.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alba, Joseph W., and J. Wesley Hutchinson. (1987). “Dimensions of Consumer Expertise,”Journal of Consumer Research 13 (March), 411–453.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, Raymond R., and Thomas K. Srull. (1988). “Competitive Interference and Consumer Memory for Advertising,”Journal of Consumer Research 15 (June), 55–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, Kevin Lane. (1987). “Memory Factors in Advertising: The Effect of Advertising Retrieval Clues on Brand Evaluations,”Journal of Consumer Research 14 (December), 316–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, Kevin Lane. (1991). “Memory and Evaluation Effects in Competitive Advertising Environments,”Journal of Consumer Research 17 (March), 463–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kent, Robert J. (in press). “Competitive versus Noncompetitive Clutter in Television Advertising,”Journal of Advertising Research, forthcoming.

  • Lipman, Joanne. (1990). “Too Many Think the Bunny Is Duracell's, Not Eveready's,”The Wall Street Journal, July 31, B1.

  • Lynch, John G., and Thomas K. Srull. (1982). “Memory and Attentional Factors in Consumer Choice: Concepts and Research Methods,”Journal of Consumer Research 9 (June), 18–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machleit, Karen A., Chris T. Allen, and Thomas J. Madden. (in press). “The Mature Brand and Brand Interest: An Alternative Consequence of Ad-Evoked Affect,” forthcoming inJournal of Marketing.

  • Pryor, John B., and Thomas M. Ostrom. (1981). “The Cognitive Organization of Social Information: A Converging-Operations Approach,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 41:4, 628–641.

    Google Scholar 

  • Postman, Leo. (1976). “Interference Theory Revisited.” In John Brown (ed.),Recall and Recognition. London: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, Surendra N., Michael L. Rothschild, and Gilbert A. Churchill, Jr. (1988). “Recognition Versus Recall as Measures of Television Commercial Forgetting,”Journal of Marketing Research 22 (February), 72–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Robert E., and Laura M. Buchholz. (1991). “Multiple Resource Theory and Consumer Processing of Advertisements: An Involvement Perspective,”Journal of Advertising 20:3, 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Srull, Thomas K. (1983). “The Role of Prior Knowledge in the Acquisition, Retention, and Use of New Information.” In Richard P. Bagozzi and Alice M. Tybout (eds.),Advances in Consumer Research Volume 10. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 572–576.

    Google Scholar 

  • Srull, Thomas K., and Julianne F. Brand. (1983). “Memory for Information About Persons: The Effect of Encoding Operations on Subsequent Retrieval,”Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 22, 219–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, David W. (1992). “Speculations on the Future of Advertising Research,”Journal of Advertising 21 (September), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Marketing 11-505D, Drexel University, 19104, Philadelphia, PA

    Robert J. Kent

  2. Department of Marketing, University of Cincinnati, 45221-0145, Cincinnati, OH

    Chris T. Allen

Authors
  1. Robert J. Kent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chris T. Allen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

The authors thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers for their guidance. Ray Burke. Frank Kardes, James Kellaris, Karen Machleit, Joe Mandese, and Don Schumsky provided helpful comments on various aspects of this research.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kent, R.J., Allen, C.T. Does competitive clutter in television advertising “interfere” with the recall and recognition of brand names and ad claims?. Marketing Letters 4, 175–184 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00994075

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00994075

Key words

Search

Navigation