Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T22:13:32.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Generic Advertising on Perceptions and Behavior: The Case of Catfish

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2016

Henry W. Kinnucan  and
Meenakshi Venkateswaran
Henry W. Kinnucan
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama
Meenakshi Venkateswaran
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An eight-equation partially-recursive econometric model is specified to indicate the effects of catfish advertising on product awareness, beliefs, attitude and consumption. Results indicate the ad campaign in its first year (i) increased consumers' awareness of farm-raised catfish 15 percent, (ii) improved consumers' perceptions of and attitude toward catfish 3 to 6 percent, and (iii) increased at-home and restaurant purchases of catfish 12 to 13 percent. The response to the ad campaign is broken down into an “attitude effect” and a “reminder effect” to determine the relative behavioral importance of the affective and cognitive components of the ad copy. Model simulations suggest primacy of the reminder effect, implying the factual content of the ads had less impact on behavior than the mere presence of the ads.

Keywords

advertisingadvertising evaluationgeneric advertisingcatfishpromotion check-offsThe Catfish Institute
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , December 1990 , pp. 137 - 151
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, Bill. The Catfish Institute. Belzoni, Mississippi. Personal Communication. September, 1988.Google Scholar
Appel, V. and Blum, M.L.. “Ad Recognition and Respondent Set”. J. Adv. Res., 1(1961): 13–21.Google Scholar
Armbruster, W. and Frank, G.. “Generic Agricultural Commodity Advertising and Promotion: Program Funding, Structure and Characteristics”. A.E. Extension 88-3, Cornell University, March, 1988.Google Scholar
Bagozzi, R.P. “A Holistic Model for Modeling Consumer Response to Innovation”. Oper. Res. 31 (1983): 128–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagozzi, R. and Silk, A.. “Recall, Recognition and the Measurement of Memory for Print Advertisement”. Marketing Sci., 2(1983):95–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batra, R. and Ray, M.L.. “Operationalizing Involvement as Depth and Quality of Cognitive Responses”. Advances in Consumer Research. Bagozzi, R.P. and Tybout, A.M., eds. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Association for Consumer Research, 1983.Google Scholar
Bogart, L. and Tolly, B.S.. “The Impact of Blank Space: An Experiment in Advertising Readership”. J. Adv. Res., 4(1964):21–27.Google Scholar
Capps, Oral Jr. and Cheng, Hsiang-Tai “The Missing Income Problem in Analysis of Engel Functions”. Western J. Agri. Econ., 11(1986): 31–39.Google Scholar
H.-S., Chang and Kinnucan, H.. “Advertising and Structural Change in the Demand for Butter in Canada”. Canadian J. Agr. Econ., 39(1990): forthcoming.Google Scholar
Clancy, K.J., Ostlund, L.E. and Wyner, G.S.. “False Reporting of Magazine Readership”. J. Adv. Res., 19(1979): 23–30.Google Scholar
Dellenbarger, L.E. Luzar, E.J., and Schupp, A.K.. “Household Demand for Catfish in Louisiana”. Agribusiness: An Int. J., 4(1988): 493–501.3.0.CO;2-W>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, J.F., Warshaw, M.R. and Kinnear, T.C.. Promotion Strategy. 4th ed. Home wood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1979.Google Scholar
Fishbein, M. “An Investigation of the Relationships Between Beliefs about an Object and the Attitudes Toward that Object”. Human Relations, 16(1963): 233–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flexser, A.J. and Tulving, E.. “Retrieval Independence in Recognition and Recall”. Psych. Rev., 85(1978): 153–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckman, J.J. “Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error”. Econometrica, 47(1979): 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoover, S. Hayenga, M., and Johnson, S.. “Evaluating the Effectiveness of Generic Pork Advertising: The First Fifteen Months”. Commodity Advertising and Promotion. Kinnucan, H., Thompson, S.R. and Chang, H.S., eds. Iowa State University Press, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Hu, Teh-wei, “Analysis of Seafood Consumption in the U.S.: 1970, 1974, 1978, 1981”. PB 86-135043, U.S. Department of Commerce. National Technical Information Service. Washington, D.C., September 1985.Google Scholar
Jensen, H. and Kesavan, T.. “Generic Advertising of Food Product Characteristics”. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of American Council on Consumer Interests. Hampton, V.L., ed. Austin, Texas, 1987.Google Scholar
Judge, G.G., Hill, R.C., Griffiths, W., Lutkepohl, H., and Lee, T.. Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Econometrics. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1982.Google Scholar
Keithly, W. and Roberts, K.. “Conceptual and Empirical Aspects of Generic Seafood Promotion”. Paper presented to the Symposium on Seafood Advertising and Promotion, Orlando, Florida, October 30-31, 1989.Google Scholar
Kinnucan, H. “Demographic Versus Media Advertising Effects on Milk Demand: The Case of the New York City Market”. Northeastern J. Agr. and Resource Econ., 15(1986): 66–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinnucan, H. and Forker, O.D.. “Seasonality in the Consumer Response to Milk Advertising with Implications for Milk Promotion Policy”. Am. J. Agr. Econ., 68(1986): 562–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinnucan, H. Sindelar, S., Wineholt, D., and Hatch, U.. “Processor Demand and Price-Markup Functions for Catfish: A Disaggregated Analysis with Implications for the Off-Flavor Problem”. S. J. Agr. Econ., 20(1988): 81–91.Google Scholar
Kinnucan, H., Venkateswaran, M. and Hatch, U.. “Effects of Catfish Advertising on Consumers' Attitudes, Purchase Frequency, and Farmers' Income”. Alabama Agr. Exper. Sta. Bull. No. 607, Auburn University, November, 1990.Google Scholar
Kmenta, J. Elements of Econometrics. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co. 1986.Google Scholar
Krugman, H.E. “The Measurement of Advertising Involvement”. Public Opinion Q., 30(1966): 583–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krugman, H.E. “Measuring Memory—An Industry Dilemma”. J. Advertising Res., 25(1985): 49–51.Google Scholar
Krugman, H.E. “Memory Without Recall, Exposure Without Perception”. J. Advertising Res., 17(1977): 7–12.Google Scholar
Lee, J-Q. and Brown, M.S.. “Commodity versus Brand Advertising: A Case Study of the Florida Orange Juice Industry”. Commodity Advertising and Promotion. Kinnucan, H., Thompson, S.R., and Chang, H.S., eds. Iowa State University Press, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Liu, D.J. and Forker, O.D.. “Generic Fluid Milk Advertising, Demand Expansion, and Supply Response: The Case of New York City”. Am. J. Agr. Econ., 70(1988): 229–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, D.B. “The ABC's of ARF's FARM”. J. Marketing, 25(1960): 9–20.Google Scholar
Maddala, G.S. and Lee, L.F., “Recursive Models with Qualitative Endogenous Variables”. Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, 5(1976): 525–545.Google Scholar
McDougall, R. “Recognition and Recall”. J. Philosophical and Scientific Methods, 1(1904): 229–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, R.G. Jr. Simultaneous Statistical Inference. 2nd ed. New York: Springer-Verlag, Inc., 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, R.M. “Generic Advertising of Farm Products”. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Information Bulletin No. 481, September, 1984.Google Scholar
Nelson, P. “Advertising as Information”. J. of Pol. Econ. 81(1974): 729–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nerlove, M. and Waugh, F.V.. “Advertising Without Supply Control: Some Implications of a Study of the Advertising of Oranges”. J. Farm Econ. 43(1961): 813–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neu, D.M. “Measuring Advertising Recognition”. J. Advertising Res. 1(1961): 17–22.Google Scholar
Rabinowitz, J.C. Mandler, G., and Patterson, K.E.. “Determinants of Recognition and Recall: Accessibility and Generation”. J. Experimental Psych: General., 106(1977): 302–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards Group, The. The Catfish Institute 1988 Marketing Plan. Dallas, Texas. January 1988.Google Scholar
Savin, N.E. “Multiple Hypotheses Testing”. Handbook of Econometrics. Griliches, Z. and Intriligator, M.D., eds. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers, 1984, 827–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silk, A.J. and Vavra, T.G.. “The Influence of Advertising's Affective Qualities on Consumer Responses”. Buyer/Consumer Information Processing, Huges, G.D., and Ray, M.L., eds. Chapel Hill, NC: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 1974, 157–186.Google Scholar
Ward, R.W. and Dixon, B.L.. “Effectiveness of Fluid Milk Advertising Since the Dairy and Tobacco Adjustment Act of 1983”. Am. J. Agr. Econ., 71(1989): 730–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, W.D. “Recognition, Recall and Rating Scales”, Advertising Res., 3(1964): 2–8.Google Scholar
White, K.J., Haun, S.A., Horsman, N.G., and Wong, S.D.. SHAZAM Econometrics Computer Program. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1988.Google Scholar
Zielske, H.A. “Does Day-After Recall Penalize ‘Feeling’ Ads?” J. Advertising Res., 22(1982): 19–22.Google Scholar