How Well Does Advertising Work? Generalizations from Meta-Analysis of Brand Advertising Elasticities

By R. Sethuraman, Gerard J. Tellis, Richard A. Briesch. 2011

444 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Management Science and Operations Research, Marketing

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/12d0fd43c2ac55ea82a8f21b28405098f4752e5b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Management Science and Operations Research

In Marketing

Citations in the corpus

Brand personality: A meta-analytic review of antecedents and consequences (2013, result): “Coding is in line with previous meta-analyses (e.g., Sethuraman et al. 2011) 0 = mature (59 samples), 1 = early (17 samples) Brand personalities have to be “built up;” thus, the effects of brand personalities are stronger for mature compared with early life cycle brands (e.g., Johar et al.…”
How Gullible are We? A Review of the Evidence from Psychology and Social Science (2017, background): “457 Shibutani, T. (1966). Improvised news: A sociological study of rumor. New York, NY: Bobbs-Merrill Company. Signer, M. (2009). Demagogue: The fight to save democracy from its worst enemies. New York, NY: Macmillan. Slone, J. (2007). Theological incorrectness: Why religious people believe what the”
The Effectiveness of Advertising: A Meta-Meta-Analysis of Advertising Inputs and Outcomes (2016, methodology): “…provide a comprehensive answer to these questions, different generalization approaches have been applied based on literature reviews (e.g., Vakratsas and Ambler 1999), evidence-based generalizations (e.g., Armstrong 2010; Tellis 2004), or meta-analyses (e.g., Sethuraman, Tellis, and Briesch 2011).”
The effectiveness of different forms of online advertising for purchase conversion in a multiple-channel attribution framework (2016, background): “Such low elasticities can be expected if the retailer uses offline advertising mainly to build and retain brand awareness, perception, and goodwill rather than to drive immediate sales (e.g. Hanssens 2009; Sethuraman, Tellis, and Briesch 2011).”
Washing Away Your Sins? Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Social Irresponsibility, and Firm Performance (2016, background): “…advertising to sales) because advertising intensity is known to, on the one hand, positively affect sales and brand equity and thus Tobin’s q (e.g., Sethuraman, Tellis, and Briesch 2011; Sorescu and Spanjol 2008; Sridhar, Narayanan, and Srinivasan 2014) and, on the other hand, affect the firm’s…”
Does Chatter Really Matter? Dynamics of User-Generated Content and Stock Performance (2012, result): “These estimates of advertising elasticity are slightly lower than the average advertising elasticity of 0.1 in the literature (Sethuraman et al. 2011, Tellis 2004).”
Dynamic Effects of Social Influence and Direct Marketing on the Adoption of High-Technology Products (2014, background): “The effectiveness of traditional marketing instrumentshas declined in many markets, whereas the effects ofsocial interactions between consumers on buying behavior and the opportunities to exploit these interactions have increased (Sethuraman, Tellis, and Briesch 2011; Van den Bulte and Wuyts 2007).”
Integrating Marketing Communications: New Findings, New Lessons, and New Ideas (2016, background): “For example, a review of academic research has found that advertising elasticities were estimated to be higher for new (.3) than for established products (.1) (Allenby andHanssens 2005; see also Sethuraman, Tellis, and Briesch 2011; Van Heerde et al. 2013).”
Brand Buzz in the Echoverse (2016, background): “In a recent metaanalysis, online WOM was shown to have an elasticity of .24 (You, Vadakkepatt, and Joshi 2015), which is more than twice the average advertising elasticity of .11 (Sethuraman, Tellis, and Briesch 2011).”