Condoms, cigarettes, and cell phones: does brand advertising increase generic demand?
| Date | 18 July 2008 |
| Pages | 285-286 |
| Published date | 18 July 2008 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420810887644 |
| Author | Joyce M. Wolburg |
| Subject Matter | Marketing |
Beyond product’s brand management
Condoms, cigarettes, and cell phones:
does brand advertising increase generic
demand?
Joyce M. Wolburg
Department of Advertising and Public Relations, Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
Abstract
Purpose – This article aims to stimulate discussion of how the advertising of brands affects the product category by creating generic demand.
Design/methodology/approach – The article outlines the author’s personal viewpoint.
Findings – Although greater emphasis has been given to generic advertising’s effect on brands, there is evidence that brand advertising can stimulate
generic demand.
Practical implications – The article takes the discussion of the issue to a different level.
Originality/value – The article not only explores ways of increasing generic demand, it also provides theoretical explanations for how it can occur.
Keywords Brands, Advertising, Demand, Consumer goods
Paper type Viewpoint
One of the most interesting controversies in marketing is
whether or not the advertising of branded products can
stimulate primary demand for the product category – in other
words, increase the size of the pie by advertising the separate
slices. Surely, manufacturers hire ad agencies to promote their
brand only, and seeing a general increase in consumption and
expansion of the market as a whole is of value only if some of
the increased consumption spills over to their brand. Yet,
there are reasons to consider the possibility that branded
advertising stimulates generic demand, even if it is not the
primary goal.
To begin with, beliefs about the effect of brand advertising
on primary demand depend upon one’s point of view as well
as the nature of the product. Activists who fight against the
spread of AIDS have pressured the mass media to accept
condom advertising in the belief that ads for Trojan and other
brands will increase generic demand and therefore result in
safer sex (Rotfeld, 2001). Similarly, regulators and marketing
critics believe that advertising for Marlboro, Camels, and
other brands of cigarettes encourages generic demand. But
because cigarettes are a harmful product, regulators and
critics have argued for greater restrictions on advertising.
A vested interest definitely makes for different thoughts on
the subject. Manufacturers of cigarettes and other legal but
potentially harmful products typically claim that advertising
simply establishes brand preference among those who have
already decided to consume the product. They argue that
advertising is not powerful enough to turn non-smokers into
smokers or non-drinkers into drinkers (Jacobson and Mazur,
1995). In contrast, Emerson Foote, founder of the Foote,
Cone and Belding agency and former chair of the board for
the McCann-Erickson agency, scoffed at the idea th at
cigarette ads are not aimed at expanding the market:
The cigarette industry has been artfully maintaining that cigarette
advertising has nothing to do with total sales. This is complete and utter
nonsense. The industry knows it is nonsense. I am always amused by the
suggestion that advertising, a function that has shown to increase
consumption of virtually every other product, somehow miraculously fails
to work for tobacco products (Jacobson and Mazur, 1995, p. 152).
For the sake of discussion, let’s consider a less controversial
product – cell phones. There is no generic advertising of cell
phones comparable to the advertising of products such as
Florida orange juice, milk, beef, or eggs. Thus, the only
advertising that consumers are exposed to is the advertising of
specific brands of phones and service providers. As a result of
heavy advertising in this product category, consumers who are
not the earliest adopters of technology in the diffusion of
innovations model (Rogers, 2003) can easily find themselves
out of step with the culture if they use a cell phone primarily
for phone calls. The constant barrage of cell phone
advertising from multiple brands is exp licitly aimed at
helping consumers differentiate between brands; however, it
implicitly sends the message that consumers are woefully
behind the times unless they also use their cell phones for text
messaging, internet access, video, still photograp hy,
navigation, music downloads, and other services. In this
case, the sum total of brand advertising legitimizes all high-
tech models as indispensable products and raises the bar
higher for the minimal acceptable level of technology. Only
after determining that a new and improved cell phone is
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm
Journal of Product & Brand Management
17/4 (2008) 285–286
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/10610420810887644]
285
To continue reading
Request your trial