Explain Why Cultural Diversity Is Important In A College Education :: essays research papers

Explain Why Cultural Diversity Is Important In A College Education   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  I come from a small town. Hannibal, MO, the boyhood home of Mark Twain, is described its claim to fame as â€Å"a sleepy town drowsing.† Most surely he has never been more accurate, for this small enchanted river town has never awakened total equality.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  It is a town full of ignorance, where nobody has ever thought twice of sharing and spreading their sly comments and idiotic judgements to anyone and everyone who will listen, and most people do. It is a town where fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, and grandparents teach their kids to â€Å"ignore those no-good niggers,† stay away from those â€Å"half-breeds† and give hell to anyone â€Å" nigger-lover† who refuses to believe the truth. It sickens me.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Last year, we had an issue to address at our school. It later became known as The Cowboys vs. The Blacks, and never has our school been more involved. The newspapers screamed of the hate, violence, and threat of gangs that were corrupting our schools; the halls rang with the lastest gossip on the next big showdown. This problem slapped a school full of apathetic kids into a lively bunch ready to get involved. Involved in what? A controversy that all had opinions on, but how could you not have an opinion? It was the talk at all of the dinner tables, bars, and stores in town. Kids went home scared of the racial tension. Parents whined and cried of violence in the school.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The parents whined and cried, and at the same time forgot to remember that it was they, not the kids, who had taught the very prejudices that were â€Å" disrupting the education process.† My opinion is simple and elementary: Children are not born to hate others, they must be taught to judge colors. If we are taught prejudices, then obviously, the racial tensions at my school didn't disrupt education, rather enforced lessons often reviewed over fried chicken and potatoes.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  I cried once in my sophomore history class. The girl in front of me sang and preached that life was just that way, no one could ever change anything, so why should we even try? Prejudice is taught in the home, and the home is where we learn everything we really need to know. I listened, fumed, and stood up to interrupt her. (I rarely frown, let alone yell, but I had had enough of her pessimism. All eyes and ears were on me, and as my dramatic nature began to influence me, I started to preach.)   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  I have a theory.

Jefferson VS. Hamilton DBQ Essay

In the history of America, Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State, and Hamilton, the Secretary of the Treasury, were two of the greatest leaders of our country. Although they both lead the country, that’s where the similarities end as they had opposing views on everything. Jefferson was a republican while Hamilton was a federalist. Jefferson had been opposed to all of Hamilton’s ideas, such as his financial plan, his interpretation of the powers of the government, his foreign policy, and his vision for the future of America. Jefferson was against Hamilton’s views because his financial plan would ultimately destroy democracy in America, his interpretation of the powers of the government could result in the destruction of the institution of slavery, his foreign policy because Hamilton was Pro-British and England’s Monarchy could spread to America, and his vision for the future of America because Hamilton wanted an Oligarchy government while Jefferson wante d a democracy. First, Jefferson was extremely opposed to Hamilton’s financial plan for America. Hamilton’s financial plan was very elaborate, ultimately leading to the preservation of America’s independence. His plan starts with the goal of gaining power through wealth. To gain wealth, Hamilton stated that industry must be created. He creates a national bank by loosely interpreting the â€Å"necessary and proper† (Doc 1) clause. Hamilton justifies his bank by saying, â€Å"Necessary often means nothing more than needful†¦useful† (Doc 2). He believed that the creation of a National Bank fell under this clause as he found it convenient to help with his plan. By creating the National Bank, he was making the rich richer, and causing them to either invest their money, spend it on products, store it in the bank, or use it to buy bonds. This in turn would give the government more wealth, and ultimately more power. It seemed like a decent idea, but Jefferson saw the flaws that came  with it. He stated that Hamilton’s plan would destroy democracy in America. In Jefferson’s notes on the state of Virginia, he said, â€Å"Those who labor in the earth are the chosen people†¦corruption of morals in the mass of cultivators†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Doc. 4). When he says this, he is saying that through the creation of industry, workers who work under others will lose their political independence. He saw this as a threat to democracy because workers would be easily manipulated to vote for someone that their employer wanted them to vote for, therefore leading to corruption in the government. And there was no workaround for this as voting was public, so anyone could watch the workers cast their vote. This would eventually lead to an Oligarchy as the rich would have all the power since they were of higher positions, and would control those of lower positions, which would be the workers. That is why Jefferson opposed Hamilton’s financial plan as this would end in the creation of a country who is led by few peop le with all the power. In addition, Jefferson was opposed to Hamilton’s interpretation of the government’s powers. Hamilton interpreted the â€Å"Necessary and Proper† clause loosely, stating that â€Å"Necessary often means nothing more than needful† (Doc. 2). By interpreting the clause this way, he opened himself to an almost unlimited amount of power. He used it to create a National Bank by claiming that it was related to regulating commerce and collecting taxes. Jefferson had been opposed to Hamilton’s interpretation for many reasons. The first one is that he interpreted the Constitution very strictly. He argued that, â€Å"Supporters of the bank bill argue that a bank would be of great convenience in collecting taxes. Even is this argument were true, the constitution allows for only those laws which are â€Å"necessary†, not for those which are merely convenient for carrying out delegated powers† (Doc. 3). He argued that the constitution was only referr ing to laws that were absolutely necessary, a last resort with no other possible options. Jefferson backs up his interpretation by also stating, â€Å" †¦ that powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the people or the states†¦The incorporation of a bank and the powers assumed by this bill have not in my opinion, been delegated by the United States by the Constitution† (Doc. 8). The second reason he interpreted the constitution this way was because if the Constitution were to be interpreted loosely, it would pose a threat towards Slavery. Jefferson had supported slavery, and did not want the government to be able to gain more power through the clause, and in the long run, eventually ending slavery in America. The final reason Jefferson opposed Hamilton’s interpretation was because Hamilton was using his loose interpretation to his advantage, creating a bank to further push his financial plan into motion, which was the exact opposite of what Jefferson wanted as it went against all of his beliefs. Jefferson was trying to stop Hamilton’s plan, and one way was to stop the abuse of the â€Å"Necessary and Proper† clause. Furthermore, Jefferson was against Hamilton’s foreign policy. Hamilton was considered to be Pro-British while Jefferson was Pro-France. During this time, France and Britain were at war fighting against each other. Hamilton supported the British and wanted them to win against the French because he believed in the British’s form of government, a monarchy. A monarchy was a government with one person that holds the sole power of the country. Hamilton’s expectations was that if the British were to win the war, the monarchy form of government would spread all across Europe, and ultimately be adopted in America as an oligarchy form of government, a country ruled by a few. He believed in this type of government because he saw that Britain was flourishing and he thought that if America adopted the same type of government, then the country would succeed as well. Hamilton shared his view on popular rule by stating, â€Å"The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom j udge or determine right. Give to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the government† (Doc. 6). Hamilton objected to power among the people because he believed that the people are always changing and have ambition. This creates a state of mind that a common person can never settle on one decision and is always going to change their beliefs. Hamilton also states his disagreement with Jefferson by saying, â€Å"In respect to our foreign  politic, the views of the gentlemen and his supports are unsound and dangerous. They have a womanish attachment to France, and a womanish resentment against Great Britain† (Doc. 9). Hamilton shows his hate on Jefferson’s views and comments that they are unsound and dangerous. Jefferson on the other hand believed that the government should be a democracy with power shared among all the people. Jefferson supported the French because of multiple reasons. First, he wanted to honor the treaty between America and France, and help them in the war against the British. Second, he did not want monarchy to spread across Europe as this would diminish his chances of creating a democracy form of government in America. Jefferson expresses his distrust for the government and the elite by saying, â€Å"I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive. It places the governors indeed more at ease, at the expense of the people† (Doc. 7). Jefferson believed that the elite would take away the rights of the common people. He trusted that Gentlemen who were small farmers, would rule better as they would be educated, disinterested, independent, and would own land. This was the criteria that Jefferson believed would fit a person to rule the country, and why he disagreed with Hamilton’s foreign policy. Finally, Hamilton and Jefferson have very different views on the future of America. Hamilton believed that the future of America should yield a Oligarchy government, with the power belonging to the elite. He wanted Britain to ultimately win the war and for America to adopt an Oligarchy government and prosper just like Britain, since he did not trust the power to be in the common peoples’ hands. Additionally, Hamilton sought out to have industry with manufacturing and agriculture. He believed that a strong manufacturing economy was of great importance to America’s future. Hamilton wrote a report on Manufacturing in which he stated, â€Å"The trade of a country which is both manufacturing and agriculture will be more lucrative and prosperous than that of a country which is merely agricultural. The importations of manufactures supplied seem to invariably drain the merely agricultural people of their wealth† (Doc. 5). Hamilton believed that for America to flourish with its economy and eventually pay off its debts, America needed to have industry to start manufacturing its own products and  be able to export products and agriculture, not just agriculture. He also thought that in the long run, the agricultural people would be drained of their wealth as manufacturing would take over the economy of America. Jefferson disagreed greatly with Hamilton’s vision for America. Jefferson wanted to have a democracy in America in the future, with power in the hands of small farmers who were Gentlemen. This was a Virtuous Republic. He distrusted the elite to run the government and trusted people who were like him to have the power. Additionally, he did not want industry to become present in America as that would destroy democracy, so he wanted more agriculture to be among the farmers. To sum up, Jefferson and Hamilton disagreed on a great deal of matters. In the end, it was both Hamilton and Jefferson who won in achieving what they wanted. Nowadays we have a democracy government, but we also have industry and we manufacture goods. We export and import goods to keep our economy in balance. The people have the power now, but it is not just small farmers and gentlemen, but rather equality among all others.

MBA Industry and Porter’s Five Forces Essay

MBA Industry: The MBA school industry includes universities and colleges that offer academic courses and grant graduate degrees. The general requirement for admission is a bachelor’s degree and GMAT ® scores. Some schools and programs also require prior employment experience. Instruction is typically provided on physical campuses, although online education and other unconventional approaches are gaining popularity. For purposes of this paper, for-profit institutions or community colleges are not included in the industry definition. The major forces that affect MBA market are: competition between public and private business schools, buyers of business education including both students and employers, faculty as the key suppliers to the industry, and substitutes in the forms of alternative means of delivering graduate business education. Porter suggests that evaluation of these forces will provide insights into the prospects for long-range profitability1. Competition: The MBA m arket in the United States is an unregulated industry that allows schools to develop their own distinctive styles and personalities, and to define their own missions5. B-Schools consider it their mission to educate and research, but face intense pressure of managing faculty issues, finding new funding sources and distinguishing themselves from competitors9, highlighting the most prominent areas within this category: cost, revenues, and reputation. Reputation is differentiated by rankings and accreditations, specializations and regional focus and flexibility10. Rankings drive how students, faculty, and employers perceive the MBA program. In turn, how students, faculty, and employers perceive the MBA program drives rankings, resulting in developing a brand name for universities, leading schools to expend vast resources in pursuit of being highly ranked or even ranked at all8. The significant costs associated with business education have left room for competitive entry by low cost providers. B-Schools now face the reality that they must compete with the low-cost providers who can turn a profit because they are not burdened with the high fixed costs of the â€Å"bricks and mortar† university4. As tuition alone will not cover the costs of running an MBA program, funding is usually sourced from donations from alumni. Most successful schools are usually ones backed by alumni that are willing and able to give back to their alma  maters. Suppliers: The most important suppliers to the MBA industry are the business school faculty who fill the teaching, research, and administrative roles with any MBA program. There is an increasing demand for qualified business faculty, while simultaneously there is a stagnating or decreasing supply of such faculty. As the pool of high quality, freshly minted Ph.D.’s is diminishing; competition for associate and assistant professors is increasing. Institutions that can afford to bid are becoming more aggressive in recruiting faculty from other schools, inflating salaries beyond what some can afford10. Rising salaries for new hires has encouraged experienced faculty to move to different institutions to receive pay raises of their own, and thus the market continues to stay extremely competitive. Buyers: The buyers of graduate management education are either the students, employers, or both. With respect to the power of student as buyers, both the MBA programs and the students possess some leverage. There is obviously significant demand for the MBA degree from students because they believe that it will enable them to receive greater opportunities in their career, receive a higher salary, or launch them into a new career7. Employer preferences have a significant effect on market for MBAs. The employer’s demand for MBAs dictates the job availability and salary range, which is proportional to demand for MBAs. Employers are always seeking the best value to raise their company’s performance by enhancing employees’ abilities. What employers define as â€Å"benefit,† however, can range from training, which raises employee efficiency to higher-level education, which emphasizes critical thinking and complex problem solving skills. Substitutes: Most participants do not enter to challenge industry leaders but to offer tailored programs that appeal to sub -sets of their prospective students. Top-ranked business schools have little need to worry about substitutes. Consumer demand for the â€Å"Top brand MBA† will always outpace the supply. The same threat to mid and lower tier schools, however, is real. The online and distance learning schools target the same students that would otherwise attend these schools forcing the lower tiered schools to diversify their offerings6. Barriers to Entry: The main barriers to entry for new entrants in MBA industry are infrastructure costs, attracting and retaining good faculty, and gaining accreditation for courses. Schools must have a solid reputation to charge more tuition to attract students and afford good professors that produce strong results among students. Furthermore, it can cost a significant amount of capital to perform research projects, which enable a school to build specialized facilities and can also contribute to a strong reputation. While public schools rely on public funds for financial aid, a large endowment is essential for many institutions.

Cooper Pharmaceuticals Case Analysis Essay

On the surface, the issue of Bob Marsh’s firing from Cooper Pharmaceuticals appears to be an open and shut case; he did not adhere to the repeated warnings by management to alter his performance and selling style, therefore he was fired. However, other considerations are in play when you analyze this case further. Bob was an employee of Cooper for twelve years at the time of his termination, and had seemingly improved his performance when prompted to do so. Bob was also exceptionally well received by physicians, office receptionists, and hospital personnel, which is a vital attribute when being a â€Å"detailer.† His persistent downside, though, was his lack of organization, planning, and follow-up, and a tendency to question some of the company’s major promotion programs. The central question to this case is, â€Å"how could this happen to someone like Bob Marsh in a company like Copper?† In my opinion, while Cooper Pharmaceuticals was not entirely withou t fault, Bob’s termination was primarily the result of his own actions, or lack thereof. Cooper Pharmaceuticals was a major manufacturer of prescription drugs for the medical and dental professions and had a reputation throughout the industry for having â€Å"excellent† management practices. The company fielded a sales force of over 500 detailers whose job was to persuade medical personnel to use and prescribe Cooper Pharmaceuticals’ drugs. Initially, Bob fit the mold of what was desired by Cooper in prospective employees. He was rated highly in his sincerity, aggressiveness, attitude, enthusiasm, learning ability, judgment, character, affability, and appearance; Bob seemed like the perfect fit. He was hired about a month after his initial interview and, much to his delight, was assigned to a territory in his hometown, Toledo. From there, Bob was seemingly ready to start his training and begin a long and prosperous career with Cooper. An effective sales training program is vital to the success of a company’s sales force. A training program should have a finite set of objectives: increased sales productivity, lower turnover, higher morale and sense of purpose, improved communication, improved customer relations, and improved self-management. It is also impor tant that companies provide a method for systematically reinforcing their training programs. Otherwise, salespeople are unlikely to change their behavior. The training at Cooper Pharmaceuticals, in principle, should have worked quite well. Employees,  including Bob, showed signs of increased sales performance on a year-to-year basis, and in 1989 sales exceed $1 billion. Turnover was low for their industry, around 8%. Also, 60% of detailers had ten or more years with the company, and 25% had fewer than five years. Each employee received a company car, generous benefits, and reimbursement for normal business expenses. Bob, while maintaining the same position as detailer, went from a starting salary of $35,000 in year one to a salary over $60,000 in his twelfth year. Bob received a month’s training in product characteristics and selling, or detailing, skills at Cooper’s headquarters. Aside from this training, both new and experienced detailers received regular training from the 35 district managers. This reinforcement was done so to ensure that all detailers mai ntained the level of expertise and professionalism requisite of a Cooper Pharmaceuticals detailer. From these facts, it becomes more apparent that the necessary skills to be successful were properly trained, informed, and reinforced in Bob by Cooper. Even from his initial interview with Cooper, there was one glaring fault Bob possessed: his seeming indifference to organization. His first district manager, John Meredith, felt that Bob gave little advanced thought to the physicians he hoped to see. Then, upon seeing the physicians, he had no definite plan or approach once in the physician’s office. From the beginning of this class, we learned that pre-approach is vital to the selling process. In this stage, information is gathered about the prospect to decipher the specific needs they have. As noted in the beginning of the case, Bob had many references from physicians and medical personnel. I believe that these relationships caused Bob to become lazy in his pre-approach and approach, and ultimately served as a crutch on which he began to rely. In addition to his lack of organization, Bob displayed more interest in developing his own promotional programs than in following the plans outlined at district meetings, and he would also second-guess promotions by deciding, on his own, which products to promote. This should have been a huge red flag for John Meredith. What would happen if a baseball player blatantly disregarded a sign and decided to swing when his coach told him not to swing? That player would find himself on the bench. If that player continually disobeyed his coach’s instructions he would find himself looking for a new team. In this instance, though, Bob was not benched. He was instead given a list of suggestions on how he could improve in certain  areas, including: * Should overcome the tendency to prejudge customers and promotion programs * Should be more responsive to management directives * Should give more attention to planning and organization As becomes evident as Bob’s tenure at Cooper Pharmaceuticals continued, he failed to adopt this initial list of suggestions, yet his employment perpetuated. After John Meredith, there was Bill Couch, then Jim Rathburn, followed by Vince Reed, Antonia Wilkens, and ultimately Ted Franklin. Six supervisors in a twelve year span is a high number. Then, when you consider the fact that many of them were young, motivated, and driven, it becomes clearer why Bob was able to keep his job. His sales numbers were constantly at quota, and there were no issues in terms of customer relations. By the time his deficiencies were noted, a new district manager was in already in place. It seems that Bob was aware of this trend and used it to his advantage. So long as he hit his sales quotas and kept customers happy, all would be well. The case states that every Cooper Pharmaceutical detailer was evaluated in terms of both sales volume and improvement in his or her relationships with customers. From this statement one could conclude that Bob should have retained his job. His sales volumes were constant yearly, sometimes increasing. He also, evident from the multiple inquiries from current customers upon his termination, maintained wonderful working relationships with his customers. The evaluation process at Cooper Pharmaceuticals is what perpetuated Bob’s employment with the company. While looking at just the sales numbers, Bob appeared to be a great employee. However, there are other factors to consider when evaluating employees. Most managers or supervisors would likely agree that they wished their employees follow their instructions when prompted to do so. To ensure that a case similar to Bob’s does not become the norm at Cooper Pharmaceuticals there are three steps that management should take. One, they should maintain a better record keeping process of employment evaluations. It is possible that because this example occurred during the 1980s, record keepi ng was maintained on paper rather than computers. However, that does not excuse an employee who repeatedly makes the same mistakes to be retained. Two, there should be a  more streamlined transition process for an outgoing district manager to pass on files/documentation to the new district manager. For example, Bob was placed on probation by Vince Reed that required him to improve performance to an acceptable level within 90 days. However, upon Vince Reed’s subsequent transfer, no one followed up on Bob’s performance. Bob’s probationary status had â€Å"evaporated.† Three, they should enact a three-strike policy. One could receive a strike for failing to reach sales quotas, not following management’s instructions, or falling customer relations. An employee would be fired following strike three. Doing this step would make the threat of termination a tangible thought, employees would be fully aware that constant missteps and mess-ups will not be tolerated. The thought of Bob Marsh being reinstated or there being any legal ramifications for Cooper Pharmaceuticals is laughable. Bob was given the chance to improve his faults on multiple occasions, yet he failed to do so for any extended period of time. He took advantage of the fact that each new district manager gave him the chance to improve. Then, his performance would slip little by little, but by this time a new district manager would be in place and the process would repeat itself. Not until Ted Franklin took over did the process change course. Ted looked over all of Bob’s previous deficiencies and realized that his record was not good and Bob would have to follow an outline given to him and complete weekly reading assignments. Not only did Bob fail to follow this agreement, he accepted his subsequent termination with little resistance or comment. The fact that Bob would call Cooper Pharmaceuticals and say he was treated unfairly is preposterous. He should be thankful for his twelve years of employment at the company and that none of his previous district managers were as competent or paid as close attention to detail as Ted Franklin. Yes, Bob appears to have maintained great relationships with his customers, and as we learned in class 80% of sales tends to come from 20% of the customers. So it is, realistically, a possibility that some business would be lost from the decision to terminate Bob. However, a company with the reputation of Cooper Pharmaceuticals should not keep an employee simply because a few clients from one sales region want him to be retained. Certain offers, such as incentives or promotions could be provided to these customers in attempt to ensure their repeated business and prove that not just Bob can provide great service and keep them happy customers. In addition, Cooper  Pharmaceuticals should, while not being defamatory or slanderous, fully outline the faults Bob possessed as an employee and effectively relay these as the reasons of his termination to Bob’s accounts. So, to answer this case’s central question, this termination happened to Bob Marsh because of Bob Marsh.

Advertising Creativity Matters

Advertising Creativity Matters MICAEL DAHLEN Stockholm School of Could â€Å"wasteful† advertising creativity that does not add to the functionaiity of the advertisement (i. e. , it neither enhances recaii and iiking of the advertising, nor Economics micael,[email  protected] se increases comprehension and persuasiveness of the communicated message) be useful? An experimentai study shows that it can. By signaling greater effort on behaif SARA ROSENGREN Stockholm School of Economics sara. [email  protected],se of the advertiser and a greater ability of the brand, advertising creativity enhances both brand interest and perceived brand quaiity.The effects are mediated by consumer-perceived creativity, suggesting that consumers are important Judges of FREDRIK TORN creativity. Bringing advertising creativity into new iight, the resuits provide impiications Stockholm School of for the development, measurement, and positioning of creative advertising. Economics fredrik,[email   protected] se INTRODUCTION There is no guarantee that creativity in an advertisement makes it more memorable or appealing to consumers (Kover, Goldberg, and James, 1995). In fact, research by, for example, Kover, James, and Sonner (1997) suggests that many creative advertising efforts may be wasted, in the sense hat they do not add to the functionality of the advertisement (i. e. , they neither enhance consumer recall and liking of the advertising, nor increase comprehension and persuasiveness of the communicated message). However, this article argues that such wasteful advertising creativity may have other positive effects. Previous research on advertising spending has found that, when bypassing functional aspects of high spending, for example, that bigger advertisements increase attention or that repeated exposures facilitate comprehension and breed liking, wasteful expenses have positive effects on brand perceptions (e. g..Ambler and HoUier, 2004; Kirmani and Rao, 2000). The pres ent research investigates whether or not the same conclusion follows with respect to advertising creativity. A common view is that creativity is a mission of the entire advertising industry, its raison d'etre (Koslow, Sasser, and Riordan, 2003). The fact that 3 9 2 JDUBOIIL OF (IDUERTISinG BESEflRCH September 2 0 0 8 advertising agencies spend a great deal of time and energy competing for creative awards, even though they are not sure that these efforts actually increase the functionality of their work, suggests that creativity is perceived to be important in its own right (e. g. Helgesen, 1994; Kover, James, and Sonner, 1997). In a frequently cited study. Gross (1972) showed that wasteful advertising creativity in advertising agencies, in the form of an abundance of creative ideas, yield more effective advertisements in the long run. This article takes the notion of wasteful advertising creativity to the level of the individual advertisement to see whether an abundance of creativit y (that does not enhance functionality) in a single advertisement yields positive effects. Building on the research on marketing signals, we suggest it does. Studies show that the very employment of various marketing elements, such s warranties (long-lasting) or price (correlates with quality), sends signals about the brand that guide consumer evaluations and choice (e. g. , Kirmani and Rao, 2000). Advertising expense has been found to be a signal that consumers interpret as the marketers' efforts due to their belief in the brand (Kirmani, 1990; Kirmani and Wright, 1989) or as proof of the brand's superiority or â€Å"brand DOI: 10. 2501/S002184990808046X ADVERTISING CREATIVITY MAHERS fitness† (Amhler and Hollier, 2004): The greater the expense, the more confident the marketer and the more fit the brand. Categorizing advertising creativity as a arketing signal, we expect that greater creativity signals more effort (as creative advertising is harder to produce than â€Å"nofr ills† advertising) and greater fitness (as the sender must have the knowledge resources to take the extra communicative leap and communicate in a nontraditional marmer) and thus produces more favorable brand perceptions. By investigating the signaling effects of advertising creativity on brand perceptions, we bypass the functional aspects that have previously been in focus in creativity research. Previous research focuses on intermediate effects such as advertising recall, liking, and comprehension (e. . , Kover, James, and Sonner, 1997; Stone, Besser, and Lewis, 2000; Till and Baack, 2005), or different facets of creativity, such as originality, meaningfulness, and emotions (e. g. , Ang and Low, 2000; Kover, Goldberg, and James, 1995; White and Smith, 2001). As advertising (and creativity) can take many shapes and forms, it is not very surprising that most authors seem to agree that the research on advertising creativity to date is troubled by contradictory and inconclusive f indings (e. g. , ElMurad and West, 2004; Koslow, Sasser, and Riordan, 2003: Stone, Besser, and Lewis, 2000).For instance, some (awardwinning, which is often the criterion in these studies) creative advertising may be very original and yield high recall, but low liking, whereas other advertising could produce strong emotions and liking, but be harder to recall. Avoiding such obstacles may be achievable by focusing on creativity as a signal in itself, rather than its facets and intermediate effects. The present study includes a number of elements that are novel to advertising creativity research. First, rather than using real advertisements as representatives of more versus less creative advertising, the tudy manipulates advertising creativity in the same manner as Ambler and Hollier (2004) manipulate advertising expense. Thus, we are able to compare advertising for the same brands with the same messages and control for the functionality of the tested advertisements. Most research to date has employed real advertisements, which makes it harder to discern the effects of the creativity in itself, as it also becomes a matter of different brands with different messages. Second, our manipulation does not produce creative advertising that is â€Å"outstanding,† but rather moderately creative. As noted by Haberland and Dacin (1992), the focus n awards creates a dichotomous view of advertising as creative yes/no. It is more likely that advertising varies in its degree of creativity. Not all advertisements win prizes for creativity, but that does not mean that those advertisements are not creative. Third, in addition to manipulating advertising creativity, we also measure consumer-perceived creativity. Previous research has usually kept the degree of creativity â€Å"hidden† from consumers, utilizing awards and expert judgments as assessments of creativity. Whereas advertising effects materialize to a considerable degree without consumer awareness (e. g..He ath and Nairn, 2005), the present study tests the notion that consumer explicit thoughts about advertising creativity matter. ADVERTISING CREATIVITY AS A MARKETING SIGNAL Most markets are flooded with products for consumers to choose between. As consumers are unable to sample all products that are available to them, or even assess the quality of all the products they have actually consumed, they rely on marketing signals (Kirmani and Rao, 2000). Ad- vertising expense is the marketing signal that has gained most attention in advertising research. According to Kirmani and Wright (1989), advertising expense is an ndicator of marketing effort: The more money spent on advertising, the greater the effort—meaning that the advertiser must really believe in the product. Spending a great deal of money on advertising is a more powerful signal to consumers about the quality of the product than the content of the advertising, as the advertiser â€Å"put their money where their mouth is. † More money means greater risk, and thus consumers feel safe that the advertiser will deliver on her promise (Kirmani, 1997). In tests of advertising expense, Kirmani (1990,1997) manipulates advertising sizes, colors, endorsers, and repetition and finds hat they may all increase perceived marketing effort. Interestingly, Kirmani (1990) notes that it is possible that perceived advertising quality (â€Å"includes the care and creativity used to design the ad†) could also have an effect on perceptions of marketing effort. However, Kirmani (1990) does not manipulate advertising quality (and more specifically, advertising creativity). Such a manipulation would result in perceptions of greater marketing effort. Coming up with a creative concept is more demanding for the advertiser than simply applying a standard solution based one's own or others' previous efforts.Consumers are â€Å"advertising literate† enough today to infer that creative advertising is probably the result of a development process that is both longer and more costly (they may even refer this to the employment of a â€Å"fancy advertising agency†). HI: Advertising creativity increases perceived marketing effort. Ambler and Hollier (2004) suggest that advertising expense may not only serve September 2 0 0 8 JDUIIOIIL OF HDUERTISIOG RESEHRCH 3 9 3 ADVERTISING CREATIVITY IVIATTERS An extra degree of creativity may send signais about tiie advertiser tiiat rub off on consumer perceptions of tiie brand. as a signal of effort, but also as a more irect signal of â€Å"brand fitness. † Referring to the biological theory of handicapping, they argue that advertising expense may be a signal of wealth—arguably, the advertiser can afford such wastefully expensive advertising. The wealth, in tum, could be interpreted as proof of previous success due to the brand's great ability to serve the market. Extending the reasoning to advertising creativity, wasteful creativity (i. e. , the surplus creativity that does not add to the functionality of the advertisement) could work as a signal of wealth as well, wealth in the form of knowledge and smartness. For example, the literature n rhetorical figures (which are a form of wasteful creativity as they convey nessages in unnecessarily clever ways) suggests that they may signal smartness on behalf of the sender (e. g. , Toncar and Munch, 2001, 2003). However, this notion has not been tested. Ambler and Hollier's (2004) concept of â€Å"brand fitness† is especially interesting in light of the growing body of research on perceived corporate ability. Perceived corporate ability refers to consumers' beliefs that the company is able to improve the quality of existing products and to generate new products innovatively (Luo and Bhattacharya, 2006).Studies show that perceived corporate ability influences the success of new-product introductions and marketing activities, as well as the market value of the entire company. In fact, perceived corporate ability may be the most powerful source of sustainable competitive advantage (Brown and Dacin, 1997; Luo and Bhattacharya, 2006). Advertising creativity could be a signal of brand ability (the equivalent of corporate ability on the individual, advertised, brand level). Coming up with a creative advertising concept signals the ability and desire to â€Å"think outside the box† and think in new and different ways compared to he competition and compared to the brand's history. Thus, advertising creativity says less about the brand's historical success and more about what could be expected from it in the future. H2: Advertising creativity increases customers' perceived abuity in the brand. ADVERTISING CREATIVITY'S EFFECTS ON BRAND PERCEPTIONS Recent advertising literature argues that the most important and reliable measures of advertising effectiveness are consumers' perceptions and experiences of the brand rather than of the advertising its elf. This influence is due to the facts that consumers are not able to remember r discern all the advertising they encounter (e. g.. Heath and Nairn, 2005; Weilbacher, 2003). Powerful advertising affects consumers' perceptions of the brand immediately (Hall, 2002). As creativity is supposed to make powerful advertising, the expectation is that more versus less powerful advertising results in immediate effects on brand perceptions. The main brand perception that has been uncovered in previous studies of marketing signals is perceived quality. As mentioned previously, perceived marketing effort signals confidence on behalf of 3 9 4 JOUIIIlflL DfflDUERTISinGRESEflRCH September 2 0 0 8 he advertiser (e. g. , Kirmani and Rao, 2000). Perceived brand ability would also signal high quality, as corsumers expect the brand to improve quality over the competition. Therefore, the hypothesis is that advertising creativity enhances perceived brand quality. H3: Advertising creativity enhances custo mers' perceptions of brand quality. Conventional wisdom holds that creative advertising pushes the message into consumers' minds (e. g. , El-Murad and West, 2004; Kover, James, and Sonner, 1997). However, recent literature argues that the individual brand does not really have much to say (e. g. Ehrenberg, Barnard, Kennedy, and Bloom, 2002; Heath and Nairn, 2005). In the massive marketspace and mindspace competition, it is increasingly difficult to be unique and virtually impossible to persuade consumers to buy your product (Weilbacher, 2003). In line with this notion, a survey among top-level agency creatives ranked the sameness among brands as the number one reason for improved creativity; rather than communicating a specific message (which is likely to resemble competitors'), advertising creativity must make the brand interesting and exciting (Reid, Whitehill King, and DeLorme, 1998).This goal is particularly relevant to established brands, which make up the majority of the market place. The greatest enemies to these brands are predictability and consumer disinterest (Machleit, Allen, and Madden, 1993). Brands must continuously reinvent themselves and challenge expectations to stay in touch with consumers. This touch could be achievable with creative advertising. Creative advertising in itself suggests that the brand has something interesting to offer, as it signals effort and confidence, and ability to deliver ADVERTISING CREATIVITY MAHERS something different from the competition. Therefore, the study expects a positive elationship between advertising creativity and brand interest. H4: Advertising creativity enhances brand interest. CONSUMERS AS JUDGES OF ADVERTISING CREATIVITY Most research on advertising creativity conceptualizes it as a â€Å"hidden tool† for advertising professionals to create powerful advertising. That is, it is important that the professionals perceive the advertising to be creative for it to be effective, but consumers are not supposed to think in such terms, rather just to like the advertising, remember it, and select the brand (e. g. , Koslow, Sasser, and Riordan, 2003; Stone, Besser, and Lewis, 2000; Till and Baack, 2005).However, a professional judgment of advertising creativity is no guarantee that the advertising will be successful (e. g. , Kover, James, and Sonner, 1997). For instance. Stone, Besser, and Lewis (2000) found that while 70 percent of the advertising that consumers remembered and liked was categorized as creative by trained judges, 47 percent of strongly disliked advertising was also categorized as creative by the judges. White and Smith (2001) compare creativity ratings between advertising professionals and the general public and found that the two groups differed in their ratings. The question is, who is the better judge?Kover, James, and Sonner (1997) argue that less professionalism is needed in the judgments of creativity, as at the end of the day, consumers' perceptions are what m atter. The present study puts this argument to the test by testing whether manipulated advertising creativity (pretested on advertising professionals) has a direct effect on our hypothesized variables, without consumers being aware of this â€Å"hidden tool,† or if consumer perceptions of advertising creativity are necessary and mediate the effects. The hypothesis is that consumer perception of the advertising creativity is the first step n the process that leads to all the hypothesized effects in H1-H4: H5: The effects of advertising creativity are mediated by consumerperceived creativity. METHOD To test the hypotheses, we must be able to compare responses between consumers who have been exposed to a more creative versus a less creative advertisement for the same brand with the same message. Furthermore, to test with certainty whether consumer-perceived advertising creativity is an intervening, mediating step between manipulated creativity and our hypothesized effects, we mu st measure creativity perception before versus after he other variables (for H5 to hold, creativity perception should have a greater effect when measured before the other variables, cf. Kenny, 1975). To this end, we chose a 2 (more creative/less creative advertisement) X 2 (perceived creativity before/after) experimental design where informants were randomly assigned to one of the four cells. To avoid stimulus specific effects, four different brands and accompanying messages were used for a total of 16 experiment cells. All four brands are established and well known in their respective product categories (pain relief, coffee, vodka, and condoms). We chose well-known rands for two reasons. First, the majority of advertising in major media are for established brands (e. g. , Kent, 2002). Second, as consumer perceptions of wellknown brands are harder to influence than those of unfamiliar brands, the test brands make a more robust test of our hypotheses. Research instrument development Similar to Ambler and Hollier (2004), we wanted to ensure that only the wastefulness of creativity would differ between advertisements, not their functionality with respect to what was communicated. Therefore, we needed to develop advertising stimuli differing only with respect to the creative execution.To this end, a method similar to that of Toncar and Munch (2003) was used. Four pairs of print advertisements were developed, one pair for each brand. Print advertisements usually have three main elements: the brand, text, and pictorial. In our manipulation, the brand and the pictorial was kept constant, while the text was varied to communicate the same message in a more (employing rhetorical figures, cf. Tom and Eves, 1999) or less (without rhetorical figures) creative way. The number of words was kept constant. The advertisements were pretested to make sure that the pairs communicated the same message, and equally strongly.Twenty plus twenty consumers from the target population (be low) were asked â€Å"how well do you agree that the advertisement's main message is. .. † and rated one of the advertisements from each pair on a scale of 1 = totally disagree/ 7 = totally agree. There were no significant differences within the pairs (A^more creative = 5. 4 verSUS Mjess creative = 5. 5). Next, 12 plus 12 advertising professionals from eight major agencies rated one of the advertisements from each pair on creativity (scale: 1 = not at all creative/ 7 = very creative). The more creative advertisements rated significantly higher than the less creative advertisements Mmore creative = 4. 0 verSUS Mjess creative = 2. 7, p < 0. 01). Notably, although significantly different from each other, neither of the two groups of advertisements was seen as particularly creative. However, September 2 0 0 8 JOURIIIIL OF HDUERTISIOG RESERRCH 3 9 5 ADVERTISING CREATIVITY MAHERS By focusing too much on award-winning advertising and treating creativity as a yes/no variabie, one mis ses out on ail the improvements that can be made and effects that can be attained at more moderate leveis. â€Å"How much do you think development of the advertisement cost? † (1 = very cheap/7 = very expensive), and â€Å"How uch time do you think has been devoted to the development of the advertisement? † (1 = very little/7 = very much). We included the variables both separately and as an index (r = 0. 52) in the analyses. Perceived brand ability ( H2) was mea- we are not interested in the absolute levels of creativity; the goal is to compare differences in degree of creativity. This approach differs from most previous research, which often employs â€Å"outstanding† (award-winning) creative advertisements. The fact that the degree of creativity is fairly low in our more creative advertisements makes our test of the effects of advertising creativity more robust.It also makes the results more applicable in practice, as most advertisements do not win awards, but may still be creative (e. g. , Haberland and Dacin, 1992; Kover, James, and Sonner, 1997). Procedure We employed a procedure similar to Ambler and Hollier (2004). The participants were part of an internet panel of a professional market research firm and recruited to represent a cross section of the working population (56/44 female-male breakdown, age range 18-65 years, average 39 years). In total, 1,284 consumers participated in the study, making a cell size of approximately 80 respondents. Asked to participate in an advertising retest, consumers were randomly exposed to one of the stimulus print advertisements online and then directly filled out a questionnaire. Measures A number of measures were employed to test the advertisement's functionality (which is supposed to be the same across conditions): Brand identification w as measured as an open-ended question, where respondents typed in the brand name they believed was featured in the advertisement. Key message identification w as measured by asking respondents to tick the correct message out of four alternatives (the alternatives were the same across all cells and were designed to be plausible for all four rands). Furthermore, we measured difficulty of comprehension (1 = very easy to comprehend/7 = very difficult to comprehend), advertising attitude (â€Å"What is your opinion about the advertisement you just saw? â€Å"), and brand attitude [â€Å"What is your opinion of (brand)? ,† both on a scale from 1 (very bad) to 7 (very good)]. We also measured brand familiarity and price estimates to rule out confounding effects of consumer knowledge or competing signals (cf. Kirmani and Rao, 2000). Similar to Till and Baack (2005) familiarity with the brand was measured before exposure (1 = never heard of it/7 = know t very well). Price estimates were measured after exposure with an open-ended question where respondents were asked to type in how much they estimated that the advertised product cost (employ ing familiar brands and products in the study, we expected no differences between conditions). We calculated differences in price estimates within the advertising pairs and compared them by product category. The following measures were used for the hypothesis tests: Perceived marketing effort ( HI) was mea- sured with two items on a 7-point scale. 3 9 6 JOUBflflL OFflDUERTISlOGflESEflRCHS eptember 2 0 0 8 ured with three items (1 = do not agree/ 7 = agree completely): â€Å"(Brand) is smart,† â€Å"(Brand) is likely to develop valuable products in the future,† and â€Å"(Brand) is good at solving consumers' problems. † We included the items both separately and as an index (Cronbach's alpha = 0. 83) in the analyses. Perceived brand quality (H3) was as- sessed by asking: â€Å"What is the general quality level of the brand? † with answers given on a scale from 1 (very low quality) to 7 (very high quality). Brand interest (H4) was measured with two items on a 7-point scale: â€Å"I find (brand) interesting,† and â€Å"I want to buy the brand† 1 = do not agree/7 = agree completely). We included the variables both separately and as an index (r = 0. 68) in the analyses. Perceived advertising creativity (H5) was measured by asking: â€Å"To what extent do you think that the advertisement you just saw is creative? † (1 – not at all creative/ 7 = very creative). The question was placed before the measures of perceived effort (HI) and brand ability (H2) in one-half of the questionnaires and after the same measures in the other half. This design enables us to test the direction of causalities between the variables (Kenny, 1975). It has been used in previous research on, for xample, the causal effects between slogan evaluations and brand perceptions (Dahlen and Rosengren, 2005). RESULTS Manipulation and confound checks Comparing the groups of more creative versus less creative advertisements. ADVERTISING CREATIVITY M AHERS perceived creativity rated significantly TABLE 1 higher for the group of more creative ad- Effects of Advertising Creativity vertisements (M = 3. 94 versus M = 3. 37, p ; 0. 01), suggesting that our manipulation of advertising creativity was successful. See Table 1. Furthermore, the analyses include testing for differences in function- More Creative Less CreativeAdvertisements, Advertisements, Planned M {SD) M (SD) Comparisons ,. . ,. Manipulation check ality between the groups with respect to †¢ ^ 5 iF brand identification, message identification, comprehension, and advertising and brand attitudes. Only comprehension and advertising attitude differed between conditions, suggesting that the more creative advertisements were more difficult to com, , . , ,. , , , , prehend and were better liked than the less creative advertisements. To rule out competing effects from these variables. they were included as covariates in the subsequent analyses, meaning that these ^ †¢;  ° ifferences were accounted for in the re- r, †¢ ^ †¢Ã¢â‚¬ ¢ Perceived creativity 3,94 (1. 51) 3. 37 (1. 64) p ; 0 . 01 ^^'^^  °^ advertising functionality †¦. ^rapd identification 0. 99(0. 26) iVIessage identification 0. 99(0. 18) Comprehension 4. 96 (1. 71) 0,98(0. 28) 0,99(0,11) 4. 64 (1. 79) n . s. n,s, p < 0 . 01 Advertising attitude  ° †¦.. ^. ‘[^uf?.. ^. ^^. ‘! ^. ‘^. ^.? Confounding variables Brand familiarity ^ ^. ^ . . ,. „ Estimated pnce, difference ,. ^ by product category 4. 08(1. 47) †¢ f^. :^l. ‘ih^^). 3. 81(1. 28) p < 0 . 01 †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ ^. ^^.. {hf! ‘^). â€Å". :! ; 4-,58 (2,23) „„^ +0. 04 4. 44 (2. 23) :28. (1:45) 3. 14 (1. 54) 3,41 (1,75) 2. 96 (1. 58) 2. 78 (1,50) 3. 16 (1. 71) p < 0 . 01 p < 0 . 01 p < 0 . 01 3 . 67(1,71) †¢ †¢ 3. 22 (;i. 26) 4. 25 (1. 19) ^ . . ,^ ,-^^ 3. 44 (1. 51) 3,42(1. 40) †¢ †¢ †¢ 3. -. 04. (1. 37) 4. 00 (1 ,70) ^ ^ , r-^ 3. 12 (1,50) p < 0 . 01 †¢ †¢ P†¦ ; p < 0. 01 † r†¦ 7. Smart 4. 02 (1. 53) 2. 37 (1. 40) p ; 0. 01 significantly greater when consumer- Develop valuable products 5. 02 (1. 25) 3. 35 (1. 55) p ; 0. 01 perceived creativity precedes the other vari- Good problem solver 4. 20 (2. 44) 2. 29 (1. 67) p ; 0. 01 Perceived brand quaiity 5. 48 (1. 16) 4. 02 (1. 0) p ; 0 . 01 DiSCUSSION Waste in advertising creativity matters. Brand interest 4. 62 (1. 51) 2. 56 (1. 41) p ; 0. 01 The results of the present study show that Interesting 4. 50 (1. 62) 2. 39 (1. 43) p ; 0. 01 Purchase intention 4. 73 (1. 71) ;. ! 2. 73 (1. 78) . ; p ; 0. 01 † r:.. 7. ^^^ † â€Å"^^ ^†Ã¢â‚¬Ëœ^^^^ ^ ^ * ^ ^^^^- ^^^^^' * ^^† improving the functionality of the adver.. ^ j u .. u tisement and push the message into †¢^ †¦. P^. ‘P^. ‘y^. l^^O':* H2 consumer-perceived creativity and the mar, .. . , j /o^ ^u i†¢ ketmg signals, and (2) the correlations are ables, implying a causal direction from he former onto the latter. H3 H4 Note: F(4, 729) = 80. 40, p < 0. 01, Wilkes' lambda, 0. 53. Consumers' minds, which conventional September 2 0 0 8 JDUROHL OF RDUERTISIIIG RESEHRCH 3 9 9 ADVERTISING CREATIVITY MAHERS lished brands that consumers were familiar Regression Coefficients, Test of Mediation by Perceived _ .. Advertismg Creativity s ? Coefficient t-Statistic p< Dependent variable Perceived marketing effort Independent variables .^, ,^ .. v ertising creativity is a p owerful signal when communicating familiar brands a s ,, well. The signaling power of Advertising creativity 0. 18 2. 31 0. 1 Advertising creativity (after inclusion of 0. 02 0. 16 n. s. perceived advertising creativity) Perceived advertising creativity , v ant mamly when communicating with c onsumers that a re u nfamiliar with t he b rand (e. g. , Kirmani a nd R ao, 2000), a d- Standardized gg^g Variables k eting signals argues that they a re r ele- 0 . 33 7. 69 0. 01 advertising creativity Recent research suggests that it is b ecom†^g i ncreasingly harder t o p osition a nd differentiate brands with advertising (e. g.. Ehrenberg, Barnard, Kennedy, a nd Bloom, Dependent variable 2002; Heath a nd N airn, 2005). A s m arkets †¦ ^. ^. ‘[^^}}'. ^^.. ^. ^^! ^^.. ^'! ^'! }]^y.. a re c rowded with similar products, c om- Independent variables m unicating a u nique message or m aking Advertising creativity 0 . 29 2. 56 0. 01 a dvertising that sticks is v irtually impos- Advertising creativity (after inclusion of perceived advertising creativity) 0. 16 0. 99 n. s. 0. 38 5. 76 0. 01 ^^^^^ â„ ¢ ^ ^^^ ‘ ^^ ^ °Ã¢â‚¬ ^^ * ° ‘^†Ã¢â‚¬Ëœ^'^^^'^^ ‘ ^^^ † ‘^ â€Å"†Ã¢â‚¬ Ã¢â‚¬ Ã¢â‚¬Ëœ^ important than ever to use creativity that really pushes the message ,, . / I T-,  » , , j , . , r,r,r,A^ t hrough (cf. E l-Murad a nd West, 2004). A nother Conclusion would b e t hat creativ-P erceived advertising creativity ^ Note: n. s. = noi significant. ity becomes less a m atter of m essage a nd content generation, a nd m ore a m atter of y/^BLE 5 form a nd s ignaling power. Crowded m ar- Correlation Coefficients, Test of Causality ^^*' ^†'^ ^^†^  °^ differentiation are the very reasons provided for the use of m ar- Perceived Creativity Perceived Creativity k eting signals such a s a dvertising e x-  »Ã¢â‚¬ ¢perceived creativity x „.. „ Perceived effort iVIeasured First -„_ 0 . 35 iVIeasured Last ^„, 0. 24 Difference „„^ p ; 0 . 05 P^-^ived ability Perceived quality 0 . 42 0 . 43 0. 32 0. 4 p ; 0 . 01 p ; 0 . 01 Brand interest 0 . 49 0. 40 p ; 0 . 01 p ense (Kirmani a nd R ao, 2000). Focusing on the execution in itself, rather than the actual message, t he a dvertiser could u se c reativity a s a p owerful marketing signal a s w ell. O † ‘ a nalysis reveals that more versus less advertising creativity pr oduces a s ignal of m arketing effort that is s imilar t o advertising expense. This is g ood news, wisdom holds t o be the major benefit of t aken a s proof of the b rand's smartness, a s t his revelation implies that t he a dver- creativity, a n e xtra degree of c reativity nd ability t o s olve problems a nd de- t iser does n ot n eed t o s pend excessive may send signals about t he a dvertiser that velop valuable products. A s a r esult, con- a mounts of m oney t o s ignal confidence i n rub off on c onsumer perceptions of the s umers became more interested i n the her p roduct. Instead of s pending money brand. I n our e xperiment, more versus brand a nd p erceived it to be of h igher o n b igger advertising spaces or l onger less creative advertising signaled greater quality. T he l atter is a p articularly inter- a nd m ore frequent campaigns (e. g. , Kir- ffort o n the a dvertiser's behalf a nd was e sting result, a s t he s tudy featured estab- mani, 1990, 1997), t he s ame effects m ay 4 0 0 JDUBnflL OF eOUERTISIIlG BESEIIIICH September 2 0 0 8 ADVERTISING CREATIVITY MAHERS be attainable by increasing creativity instead. Thus, the present study provides compelling evidence that creativity could be a way to produce greater results per advertising dollar. Creativity seems to have the greater effect through signaling brand ability than through effort. One reason for this is that creativity may fit more logically with what the brand, and advertising in general, is erceived to be about: displaying great solutions in the advertised product category. While high versus low creativity also has a signaling effect through perceived effort, most consumers would probably agree that trying hard is not the true purpose of any advertising or brand. Advertising is not primarily about spending money; advertising is about cleverly presenting the brand, and a desirable goal for any brand should be to deliver a more sophisticated product than the competition (cf. Brown a nd Dacin, 1997). The very (creative) form of the advertising could be a powerful clue to consumers about the brand.Creativity Is not a yes/no The presented numbers reveal that the advertising creativity in our study was not very high (ratings were not above the midpoint of the scale for either the more or the less creative advertisements). Thus, the study does not test the effects of outstandingly creative advertisements. Neither of the advertisements in the study would likely win an award. Still, at these (relative to previous research and to awardcompeting advertisements) low levels of creativity, increases did matter. This result provides evidence that creativity is not only important at an award-winning level, t is important at any level. By focusing too much on award-winning advertising and treating creativity as a yes/no variable, one misses out on all the improvements that can be made and effects that Consumer perceptions of the creativity in an advertisement mediate the adve rtisement's effects on the brand and malee the impact of the manipulated (â€Å"hidden†) creativity much greater. can be attained at more moderate levels. Considering the high risk that is associated with high levels of creativity (e. g. , El-Murad and West, 2003; West, 1999), taking baby steps is both easier and safer han quantum leaps—viewing creativity as a spectrum rather than a high absolute level encourages increases in advertising creativity across all advertising campaigns. Creativity is not a iiidden tool Given the signaling power of advertising creativity, viewing creativity as a hidden tool for advertising professionals is a mistake. Consumer perceptions of the creativity in an advertisement mediate the advertisement's effects on the brand and make the impact of the manipulated (â€Å"hidden†) creativity much greater. This is a powerful case for Kover, James, and Sonner's (1997) call to bring consumers nto the agencies' processes and invite them to pa rtake in the development—and definition—of creative advertising. Whereas copy testing is becoming more common in practice, advertising professionals still interpret the results on behalf of the consumer, deciding whether her responses indicate that the advertisement is creative or not. Not surprisingly, Koslow, Sasser, and Riordan (2006) find that formal testing had no effect on agencies' self-assessed creative output. If advertising professionals both ask the questions and interpret consumers' answers to them, what need is there to actuaUy ask consumers?If agencies had included consumer perceptions of the advertisements' creativity in the testing, Koslow, Sasser, and Riordan's findings would probably have been different. As Kover, James, and Sonner (1997) suggest, taking a consumer perspective offers new ideas and nuances in the creative process and provides more concrete feedback on the creative level of the advertising that would facilitate benchmarking and enhancem ent of the creative output. In enhancing perceived brand ability, the very creative form of advertising could be a way of branding. As suggested in the corporate ability literature, ability could e a powerful positioning in itself (Biehal and Sheinin, 2007; Brown and Dacin, 1997). For brands that have no particular unique feature, becoming increasingly common with the overwhelming number of alternatives available in most markets, ability in itself could be a sustainable source of advantage leveraging consumer expectations and trust in any product the brand introduces. This view is particularly interesting considering the trend toward continuously releasing new products under the same brand (Biehal and Sheinin, 2007). The research on marketing signals focuses mainly on unfamiliar brands (Kirmani and Rao, 2000).Whereas it still needs to be tested, creativity should have important effects on unfamiliar brands as well, as they may benefit more from marketing signals in general. However, the present study shows that high versus low creativity works as a signal for familiar and September 2 0 0 8 JDURHIIL OF BDOERTISIIIG RESEflRCH 4 0 1 ADVERTISING CREATIVITY MAHERS Creative advertising does increase consumer interest in ations and Consumer Product Responses. † Journal of Marketing 6 1, 1 (1997): 68-84. the brands, not by communicating a new message, but by COHEN, JACOB, a nd P ATRICI COHEN. Applied ommunicating the same message in another way. Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. H iilsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1983. established brands. Such brands make up the bulk of advertising in major media (Kent, 2002), They need to stay interesting to consumers even when they have nothing new to say (Machleit, Allen, and Madden, 1993), Creative advertising does increase consumer interest in the brands, not by communicating a new message, but by communicating the same message in another way. The present study focuses on a small number of advertis ements for consumer products.We employed only one exposure that was forced on consumers. Our experimental design was a way to test previously uncovered effects of creativity in a controlled setting. This way, we show that advertising creativity may work in different ways than in previous literature and have powerful effects. Whether these effects materialize in a real setting (with noise, less motivated consumers), and for different kinds of products, must be subject to further research, within advertising, PR, and brand communications DAHLEN, MICAEL, a nd SARA ROSENGREN, † Brands have been published in, for example, the Journal ofAffect Slogans Affect Brands? Brand Equity, Com- Advertising Research, the Journal of Advertising, the petitive Interference, and the Brand-Slogan Link. † Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, Journal of Brand Management 1 2,3 (2005): 151-64, and the Journal of Brand Management. EHRENBERG, ANDREW S . C , N E I L BARNARD, FREDRI K TORN is a Ph. D. candidate at the Stockholm RACHEL KENNEDY, a nd H ELEN BLOOM, † Brand School of Economics, focusing on incongruent brand Advertising a s C reative Publicity. † Journal of communications. His studies have been published in, Advertising Research 42, 4 (2002): 7-18. or example, the Journal of Advertising, the Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, and the Journal of Consumer Behavior. EL-MURAD, JAAEAR, a nd D OUGLAS C . W EST, â€Å"Risk and Creativity in A dvertising,† Journal of Marketing Management 19, 4 (2003): 657-73, REFERENCES and â€Å"The Definition a nd Mea- surement of C reativity: What D o We K now? † AMBLER, T IM, a nd E. A N N H OLLIER † The Waste Journal of Advertising in Advertising Is the P art That Works. † Journal 188-201. Research 44, 2 (2004): of Advertising Research 44, 4 (2004): 375-89, GROSS, IRWIN, † The Creative Aspects of AdverANG, SWEE HOON, a nd S HARON Y.M , LOW. â€Å"Explorin g t he D imensions of Ad C reativity,† tising. † Sloan Management Review, 14, 1 (1972): 83-109. Psychology & Marketing 17, 10 (2000): 835-54, MICAEL DAHLEN is a professor of marketing at the BARON, REUBEN M , , a nd D AVID A. K ENNY, † The Stockholm School of Economics, His research fo- Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in So- cuses on innovative advertising and brand strategies, cial Psychological Research: Conceptual, Stra- with the ambition to join creativity, business, and con- tegic, a nd Statistical Considerations,† Journal of sumer value. Having been published in, for example,Personality and Social Psychology 5 1, 6 (1986): the Journal of Advertising Research, the Journal of HABERLAND, GABRIELE S. , and P ETER A, D A – 1173-82. GIN. † The Development of a M easure to Assess Viewers' Judgments of the C reativity of an Advertisement: A P reliminary Study,† Advances in Consumer Research 19 (1992): 817-25, Advertising, Psychology & Marketing, the Journal of HALL, BRUCE F . † A New Model for Measuring Brand Management, he has taken the first baby steps BiEHAL, G ABRIEL J. , and D ANIEL A, S HEININ, Advertising Effectiveness,† Journal of Advertis- toward realizing that ambition. The Influence of C orporate Messages o n the ing Research 42, 2 (2002): 2 3-31. Product Portfolio. † Journal of Marketing 7 1, 2 SARA ROSENGREN is a Ph. D. candidate at the Stock- (2007): 1 2-25. holm School of Economics, presenting her thesis on HEATH, ROBERT, a nd A GNES NAIRN. † Measur- ing Affective Advertising: Implications of L ow marketing communications in cluttered environments BROWN, T OM J. , and P ETER A, D ACIN, † The Attention Processing o n Recall,† Journal of Ad- in the fall of 2 008, Her experiments on competition Company a nd the P roduct: Corporate Associ- vertising Research 45, 2 (2005): 2 69-81, 0 2 JOUBUfiL OF BDUEBTISinG RESERRCH September 2 0 0 8 ADVERTISING CREATIVITY MATTERS HELGESEN, THOROLF. † Advertising Awards and cies. † Journal of Advertising Research 4 3,1 (2003): STONE, GERALD, DONNA BESSER, a nd L ORAN E . Advertising Agency Performance Criteria. † Jour- 96-110. LEWIS. â€Å"Recall, Liking a nd C reativity in TV nal of Advertising Research 34, 4 (1994): 4 3-53. Commercials: A N ew Approach. † Journal of Adand â€Å"Do Marketers G et KENNY, DWAYNE A . â€Å"Cross-Lagged Panel Cor- the Advertising They Need or t he A dvertising relation: A Test for S puriousness. † Psychological They Deserve?Agency Views of H ow C lients Bulletin 82, 6 (1975): 887-903. Influence Creativity. † Journal of Advertising 35, vertising Research 40, 3 (2000): 7 -18. TILL, BRIAN D . , a nd D ANIEL W . BAAGK. â€Å"Recall 3 (2006): 8 1-101. and Persuasion. Does Creativity Matter? † Journal of Advertising 34, 3 (2005): 47-57. KENT, ROBERT J. â€Å"The Effects of M edia-Source Cues i n Ad Recall Tests. † Journal of Current KOVER, ARTHUR J. , S TEPHEN M . G OLDBERG, a nd Issues and Research in Advertising 24, 1 (2002): WILLIAM M . J AMES. † Creativity v s. Effective- TOM, GAIL, a nd A NMARIE EVES. † The Use of 1-9. ness?A n I ntegrating Classification for A dver- Rhetorical Devices i n A dvertising. † Journal of tising. † Journal of Advertising Research 3 5,6 (1995): Advertising Research 39, 4 (1999): 3 9-43. KIRMANI, AMNA. † The Effect of P erceived A d- 29-40. vertising Costs o n B rand Perceptions. † Journal ToNGAR, M ARK E , a nd J AMES MUNGH. † Con, W ILLIAM L . J AMES, a nd B RENDA S . S ON- of Consumer Research 17, 2 (1990): 1 60-71. NER. â€Å"To Whom Do Advertising Creatives Write? sumer Responses t o Tropes in P rint Advertising. † Journal of Advertising 30, 1 (2001): 55-65. An Inferential Answer. † Journal of Advertising â€Å"Advertising Repetition as a Signal of Research 37, 1 (1997): 4 1-53. Quality: If I t's A dvertised So M uch, S omething , a nd Must Be W rong. † Journal of Advertising 26, 3 . â€Å"The Influence of S imple , a nd AKSHAY R . R AO. † N O P ain, N o Gain: Luo, XuEMiNG, and C. B. BHATTAGHARYA. â€Å"Cor- porate Social Responsibility, Customer Satisfac- tance a nd M emory. † Journal of Marketing Theory tion, a nd M arket Value. † Journal of Marketing (1997): 7 7-86. and Complex Tropes o n Believability, Impor- & Practice 11, 4 (2003): 3 9-53. 70, 4 (2006): 1-18. A Critical Review of t he L iterature o n SignalWEILBAGHER, WILLIAM M . H O W A dvertising ing Unobservable Product Quality. † Journal of Marketing 64, 2 (2000): 66-79. MAGHLEIT, KAREN A. , C HRIS T . A LLEN, a nd Affects Consumers. † Journal of Advertising Re- THOMAS J. M ADDEN. † The M ature Brand a nd search 4 3, 2 (2003): 230-34. Brand Interest: A n A lternative Consequence of , a nd P ETER WRIGHT. † Money Talks: Per- ceived Advertising Expense a nd Expected Prod- Ad-Evoked Affect. â €  Journal of Marketing 57, 4 WEST, DOUGLAS C . â€Å"360 ° of C reative Risk. † (1993): 7 2-82. Journal of Advertising Research 2 9,1 (1999): 39-50. uct Quality. † Journal of Consumer Research 16, 3 1989): 3 44-53. REID, L EONARD N . , K AREN WHITEHILL KING, KOSLOW, SCOTT, SHEILA L . SASSER, a nd E D – Creatives Look a t A dvertising Creativity Then ing Advertising Creativity Using t he C reative WARD A. R IORDAN. † What is C reative t o W hom and N ow. † Journal of Advertising 27, 2 (1998): Product Semantic Scale. † Journal of Advertising and Why? Perceptions o n A dvertising Agen- 1-16. Research 4 1, 6 (2001): 27-34. and D ENISE E . D ELORME. â€Å"Top-Level Agency WHITE, ALISA, a nd BRUGE L . S MITH. † Assess- September 2 0 0 8 JDURDHL OF HDUEIITISIOG RESEflRCH 4 0 3

Effective Leadership in an Organization Research Paper

Effective Leadership in an Organization - Research Paper Example Leadership is defined as the influence exerted by particular individuals upon the goal achievement of others within an organization (Nader, n.d). However, it should be borne in mind that leadership is not only concerned with encouraging people to perform preferred tasks within a group, and that leadership skills can be learned and exercised by any individual within a group in order to complete the desired tasks. Therefore, leadership is not only about leading people but should also inspire and motivate others to become leaders themselves. Thus leadership and motivation are strongly linked as leadership is also about providing the right direction and motivation to people in a group or organization in order to achieve the set target or goal successfully. In order to motivate their staff a leader may choose to follow a particular behavior to get the work done from their co-workers or subordinates. They may follow a directive behavior by which they schedule the work and maintain performa nce standards for their team members. Some leaders may have a supportive behavior by maintaining a pleasant and friendly relationship with their team and motivate them to achieve the set goals. ... Recent studies have analyzed the important role of an effective leader to an organization for bringing about a transformational change within the same. Leaders who are capable of bringing about a transformation within the organization should inspire and motivate their team to work towards achieving the set goals without any consideration for the pay or position that they may stand to gain from the job. Through such an effort leaders affect the performance of an organization and contribute to its survival in a highly competitive environment. Major problems within organizations are sorted by bringing about a change in the leadership with the hope that the new leader would bring effective strategies to change these problems. In addition to individuals possessing the right leadership qualities, the presence of talented personal and management, effective strategies that would help in staying ahead of competitors and monitoring systems that would help keep track of all the above would cont ribute to making an effective organization (Ali, 2012). There are several qualities that make for a successful and effective leader. Leaders can earn their positions through their hard work, expertise and ability to influence people within an organization or in some cases may be assigned with leadership responsibilities through a formal appointment. In either case leaders need to possess certain desired qualities or traits that would help them to be successful and also gain the support and trust of their subordinates and co-workers. Leaders should be able to provide intellectual stimulation to their fellow workers which would enable them to come up with new ideas and handle situations and problems in different ways. Leaders

British American Tobacco Coursework Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

British American Tobacco - Coursework Example A negative externality is generated by an action when it imposes a cost on someone else who had no control over the action. Types of externalities. The common externality attributed to cigarette smoking is the economic cost of health care to non-smokers as well as to smokers themselves. Another externality is the health effects of environmental smoke to non smokers and to their families. Report of CDC (2010) said that premature deaths and smoke related diseases in nonsmokers were caused by second hand smoke. Smoking also pollutes the air environment, the lands, and water. Air is polluted by chemicals in the cigarette which is breathed out, cigarette butts end in the grounds and inevitably flushed in the water. The costs related to health maintenance and cleaning of the environment are negative externalities attributed to cigarette and tobacco. 2. Production process and what type of externalities are produced in each process Tobacco production starts with purchase of about 400,000 ton s of tobacco leaf yearly from farmers coming from the emerging economies. Negative externalities in tobacco production are: ground water pollution from fertilizer use, deforestation, food contamination and farm worker exposure to toxic chemicals from pesticide use, water and energy use, and fires caused by cigarette smoking. A positive externality is also produced such as social cost that includes income benefits to agriculture, farmers and families and competitive advantage of production of emerging countries. The second process in cigarette and tobacco production is the manufacturing process done through 50 factories in 41 countries. Once the processed leaf arrives at the factory, it is checked for quality and blending, and the rest of the activity are fully automated and no longer done by hand. Quality control is top priority and tracking of production is done by computers (BAT). As new technology is introduced in the manufacturing process, reduction of employment is necessary an d some machines are rendered obsolete. Negative externality produced in the manufacturing is the loss of income due to cost reduction of the company and the cost of machines that have to be destroyed. Policy of BAT is to destroy old machines to prohibit counterfeit of cigarettes. 3. How does government try to control externalities? Government tries to control externalities of tobacco and cigarette consumption thru policies and regulations. Government uses production taxes, consumption taxes, restriction, quota and subsidies to agricultural products. The government is often called upon to intervene in the market to resolve externality problems. Government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency are established to set and enforce air quality standards, and taxes are imposed to obtain fund to pay for external costs or subsidize external benefits. The United States has imposed an increase of excise tax that took effect July, 2010, with some states charging low, and others t oo high (NCSL, 2010). 4. Are the externalities controlled effectively? Are there other ways other externality could be? controlled. Under an unregulated market where there is no control, firms maximize their profits, but subsequent problems arise due to externalities. Under this condition, government intervention is needed to bring back