1. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (Taylor & Francis Group)
Nontarget Markets and Viewer Distinctiveness: The Impact of Target Marketing on
Advertising Attitudes
Author(s): Jennifer L. Aaker, Anne M. Brumbaugh, Sonya A. Grier
Source: Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 9, No. 3 (2000), pp. 127-140
Published by: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (Taylor & Francis Group)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1480407
Accessed: 26/11/2008 08:42
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lebtaylorfrancis.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (Taylor & Francis Group) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Journal of Consumer Psychology.
http://www.jstor.org

2. OF
JOURNAL CONSUMER PSYCHOLOGY, 127-140
9(3),
? Lawrence
Copyright2000, Erlbaum Inc.
Associates,
NontargetMarketsand Viewer Distinctiveness:The Impactof
TargetMarketingon AdvertisingAttitudes
JenniferL. Aaker
GraduateSchool of Business
StanfordUniversity
Anne M. Brumbaugh
WeatherheadSchool of Management
Case WesternReserve University
Sonya A. Grier
GraduateSchool of Business
StanfordUniversity
Thisresearch examines effectof target
the marketing members theadvertiser's
on of intended
audience wellas members inthetarget
as not market: nontarget
the market. results 3 ex-
The of
periments show that unfavorable nontarget marketeffects are stronger membersof
for
nondistinctive groups(e.g.,Caucasian individuals,heterosexual and
individuals) favorable tar-
getmarket for of
effectsarestronger members distinctive groups(e.g.,African American indi-
homosexual
viduals, The of 2
individuals). results Experimentdemonstrate thepsychologi-
that
cal processes whichtarget nontarget
by and market effectsoccurdifferby viewergroup: Felt
similaritywithsources anadvertisement
in drives targetmarketeffectsfordistinctiveviewers,
whereas targetedness
felt drivestarget market effectsfornondistinctiveviewers. Finally,Ex-
periment showsthat
3 theseconsumer of or are
feelings similarity targetedness associated with
underlying processes identification internalization.
of and Theoreticalimplications regarding
of
theimpact distinctiveness in
theory consumer persuasioneffectsandpotential socialeffects
marketing discussed.
of target are
Imagineyou are channel surfingand find yourself watching Althoughconsumerbehaviorresearchhas focused on the
Black Entertainment Television, a cable channelwhose pro- impactof targetmarketingon those in the targetmarket,con-
grammingandadvertisingaregearedtowarda predominantly siderablyless attentionhas focused on the impact of target
AfricanAmericanaudience.As a middle-agedWhiteperson, marketingon those not in the targetmarket-the nontarget
you are fascinatedby what you see, but you do not "get"all market.Froma theoreticalperspective,examiningattitudinal
thatis going on. The show ends and a commercialfor Stove effects of the nontargetmarketcan lead to a greaterunder-
Top Stuffing,just what you are aboutto have for dinner,ap- standingof the full range of responsesto persuasiveappeals
pears.You are amused and interestedto see this advertising (Friestad& Wright, 1994). Froma practicalperspective,ex-
appealthat is very differentfrom any you have seen for the aminingthe reactionsof nontarget marketmembersto adver-
brandbefore. You are confused because they are calling it tising intended for others sheds insight on how to better
dressing, although the box clearly says stuffing. What are manage multiple segments in an increasingly diverse and
your attitudestowardthe advertisementand brandnow? behaviorallycomplex marketplace.
Thus, in this researchwe investigate the effects of target
marketingon consumers not in the intended target market.
for be to L. Uni-
Stanford
should sent Jennifer Aaker, We proposethatthe negative effects associatedwith feeling
Requests reprints
School Business, Memorial Stanford,
Graduate
versity, of 518 Drive, CA excluded from a marketer'sintended audience have conse-
E-mail:
94305-5015. aakerjennifer@gsb.stanford.edu quences for advertisingreactions that differ fundamentally

3. 128 AAKER, BRUMBAUGH,GRIER
froma merefailureto achievefavorabletargetmarketeffects. driven by consumers'inference of similaritybetween some
We call these negative consequences nontarget marketef- characteristicsof the advertisement(e.g., source pictured,
fects and explore the natureand impact of these effects in language used, lifestyle represented)and characteristicsof
three experiments. Experiment 1 demonstrates the basic the consumer(e.g., realityor desireof havingthe represented
propositionthat nontargetmarketmembersrespondless fa- lifestyle; Gronhaug Rostvig, 1978). Thus,persuasionis en-
&
vorablyto targetedmarketing efforts andhighlightsthe mod- hancedby a match between the characteristics the adver-
in
erating condition of viewer distinctiveness. That is, tisementand those of the consumer,relativeto when thereis
individualsin numericallyraregroupsare more likely to ex- no such match (Whittler,1989; Whittler& DiMeo, 1991).
hibittargetmarketing effects, whereasindividualsin a major- In contrast,negative nontargetmarketeffects may occur
ity group are more likely to exhibit nontarget marketeffects. when the cues in an advertisement incongruent
are with some
Furthermore, results of this experimentsuggest thatper-
the characteristic, need, belief, or value of the consumer.Forex-
ceptionsof similarityto sourcesin the advertisement, well
as ample,when an advertisement sourcehas characteristicsthat
as perceptionsof inclusion in the targetmarketof the adver- differfrom those of the viewer (e.g., when the advertisement
tisement, are related to targetand nontargetmarketeffects. featuresindividualsfroma groupof which the viewer is not a
Experiment2 investigates two ways by which target and member),these favorableeffects should not accrue. Rather,
nontargetmarketeffects may occur and shows that the dis- viewers in the nontargetmarketmay perceive dissimilarity
tinctivenessof bothconsumersandadvertisement sourcesin- between themselves and the intendedtargetin the advertise-
fluence the specific processes driving target and nontarget ment (as conveyed through source or nonsource targeting
marketeffects. The combinedresultsof Experiments1 and2 cues). As a result, individualsmay infer that their tastes and
imply that target marketinginduces identificationwith the preferencesare differentfrom that of the intendedtargetand
sources among distinctive groups and internalization theof thus fail to adoptthe favorableattitudetowardthe advertise-
message among nondistinctivegroups. Experiment3 con- ment. Anecdotalevidence suggests thatindividualsviewing
firms that these underlyingpsychological processes lead to an advertisement has not been designedto appealto their
that
targetand nontargetmarketeffects. The implicationsof the marketsegment are likely to view the advertisement dis- as
existence of nontargetmarketeffects and the psychological tracting or irritating(Star, 1989), may feel ignored or ne-
processesthatunderliethese effects arediscussed in the con- glected (Greco, 1989), or even become alienatedor offended
text of our theoreticaland practical understanding con-of (Lipman, 1991). Thus, nontargetmarketeffects are marked
sumerresponse to targetedmarketingefforts. not by a failureto achieve favorabletargetmarketeffects, but
rathera decreasedpreferencefor an advertisement people
by
who believe they are not the targetof the advertisement.1
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF TARGET
MARKETAND NONTARGET
MARKETEFFECTS THE MODERATINGEFFECT OF
VIEWER DISTINCTIVENESS
Targetmarketing refersto the identificationof a set of buyers
sharingcommon needs or characteristics a companyde-
that In the process of creatingtargetedadvertisements, single
a
cides to serve (Kotler,Armstrong, Starr,1991). It has argu-
& is
largemarket dividedinto separate segmentson the basisof a
ably been the driving force behind the success of many meaningfulvariable(s).The meaningfulnessof the specific
well-knownbrands(e.g., Pepsi, Mercedes-Benz,MillerLite) segmentation variableis likely to influencethe strength tar-
of
andprovidesthe basis of a predominant branding strategy,the get andnontarget marketing effects.Morespecific,research on
userpositioningapproach, which the brandis closely asso-
in persuasion effects suggeststhatanyvariable leadsindivid-
that
ciatedwitha particular orcustomer(e.g., Maybellineand
user uals to makesimilarity judgmentsbetweenthemselvesandan
the girl next door). Underlyingthe use of targetmarketingis advertisement source(e.g., culturalorientation,Aaker& Wil-
the premise that those who are targeted,or spoken to, will liams, 1998; social class, William & Qualls, 1989; ethnicity,
have strongaffinityfor the brand(Aaker,1999). A numberof Wooten, 1995) shouldimpactthe degree to which targetand
researchers have examinedhow varioustargetmarkets(e.g., nontarget marketeffects occur.However,the morepersonally
older consumers, women, African Americans)arrive at the
higherlevels of affinity for the brand.For example,research
has shownthatracialsimilarity(Whittler,1989), role congru- This research distinguishes between target marketingfrom the mar-
ence (Meyers-Levy,1989), labeling(Tepper,1994), intensity keter's (actualtargetmarket)versus the consumer's (perceivedas being in
of ethnic identification(Williams & Qualls, 1989), shared the targetmarket)perspective.Althoughthe two constructsare often highly
culturalknowledge (Brumbaugh,1997), and ethnic salience related,target marketeffects are only examined from the consumer's per-
market
spective in this research.In addition,we focus on negative nontarget
(Deshpande & Stayman, 1994) all evoke positive effects effects (orthe decreasedpreferenceforan advertisement nontarget
by market
amongthe targetmarket.This researchhas generallydemon- vs. targetmarketmembers).Futureresearchis neededto identifythe limiting
stratedthatthe process by which targetmarketingoperatesis conditionsunderwhich positive nontargetmarketeffects may occur.

4. NONTARGET
MARKETS
ANDVIEWER
DISTINCTIVENESS 129
meaningful variable, morelikelythatsimilarity
the the withthe Mackie, 1990; Mackie, 1987; Nemeth, 1986). Although the
sourcewill be felt (Tajfel, 1981). literatureis mixed in terms of whetherminorityor majority
Onemeaningful variable viewerdistinctiveness,
is whichre- sources exert greaterinfluence (Latane & Wolf, 1981) and
fers to the numerical rarityof a particulargroupof individuals how they exert influence (Maass & Clark, 1983), this re-
(McGuire,1984; McGuire,McGuire,& Winton, 1979).2Dis- searchdoes suggestthattargetedadvertisingfeaturingminor-
tinctiveness theorypredicts an individual's
that traits
distinctive ity versus majoritysources should lead to differenttypes of
will be more salientto himself or herselfthancommonlyheld effects among target and nontargetmarketmembers.More
traitsbecausesuch highly distinctivetraitsare morecentralto specific, bothtargetandnontarget consumersarelikely to re-
theself-concept. Thus,individuals belongto a distinctive
who or spond similarly to advertisements that feature majority
numerically raregroup (e.g., Native Americans,professional sourcesbecause they tend to be viewed as representing more
athletes,handicapped individuals)tendto be highly awareand accurate and valid viewpoints relative to minority views
mindfulof thecharacteristics shared thatgroupandaremore
by (Baker& Petty, 1994). In contrast,appealsfeaturingminority
likely to incorporate groupidentityinto theirself-concept
that sourcestend to lead to more divergentthoughtsandless tacit
thanindividuals who do not belongto sucha group.Forexam- acceptanceof the message (Nemeth, 1986) and may induce
ple, McGuire, McGuire, Child,andFujioka (1978) foundthatof more enduringattitudechange (Mackie, 1987).
the numerically predominant White studentsin an American This line of researchsuggests an asymmetryin responses
gradeschool,only 1%spontaneously mentioned theirethnicity to targetedadvertisingdepending on the numeric status of
in describing themselves, whereas14%of theminority Hispanic boththe sourcein the advertisement the viewer of the ad-
and
and 17%of the minorityBlack studentsdid so. These results vertisement. Because numerically raretraitshave a greaterin-
havebeenmirrored studieswithothertraits,
in including height, fluence on an individual's self-concept than do commonly
wearing glasses (McGuire & McGuire, 1979), hair color, held traits, perceived similarity between a viewer and a
weight, birthplace(McGuire& Padawer-Singer, 1976), and sourcein an advertisement shouldbe strongerwhen the basis
gender(Cota & Dion, 1986). of that similarityis a distinctive versus nondistinctivetrait.
In a consumer context, distinctiveness affects how con- This heightenedperceivedsimilarityshouldresultin stronger
sumers respond to marketingstimuli targetingnumerically target marketeffects (Aaker, 1999). In other words, target
raregroups (Forehand& Deshpande, 1999; Wooten, 1995). market effects should be enhanced for distinctive viewers
For example, Deshpandeand Stayman(1994) found thatnu- who are being targetedon the basis of that distinctive trait
meric ethnic composition in a populationinfluenced the sa- thanfor nondistinctiveviewers who arebeing targetedon the
lience of a person's ethnicity and, subsequently, the basis of a more common, nondistinctivetrait.
effectiveness of targetedadvertisements. More specific, their In additionto suggestingdifferentreactionsto advertising
results showed thatan advertisement targetedtowardan eth- targetingtheir own groups, distinctiveness theory suggests
nic minoritygroupis viewed more favorablyby membersof differences among distinctive and nondistinctiveviewers in
that ethnic group when they were a minority of their local theirreactionsto advertisements targetedtowardindividuals
populationthanwhen they compriseda greaterproportion of outside their group. In this case, distinctivenesstheory pre-
their local population.Although the targetedadvertisement dicts a varyingeffect of minorityversusmajoritygroupmem-
enhancedfavorabletargetmarketeffects amongall members bership based on heightened awareness of dissimilarity
of an ethnic group, differences in the local demography (McGuire,1984). Because advertisements targetingnumeric
strengthenedthat effect for individuals for whom ethnic minoritiesarerelativelyrarein mainstream media(Ringhold,
groupmembershipwas particularly distinctive. 1995), such advertisementsshould be particularlysalient to
We extend these findings to propose that consumer dis- nondistinctiveindividualsoutsidethatgroup,inducingstron-
tinctiveness-that is, the numericminority-majority statusof ger perceptionsof dissimilaritybetween themselves and the
an advertisement viewer-will moderate both target and source. These perceptions of dissimilarity should lead to
nontarget marketeffects. In addition,we proposethatthe dis- more unfavorableattitudes toward the advertisementthan
tinctivenessof the advertisement sourcewill influencethe ex- would occur when individualsin distinctivegroupsview ap-
tentof targetandnontarget marketeffects. This propositionis peals targetingnondistinctiveindividuals.In contrast,adver-
supportedby the large body of researchon minorityand ma- tising targeting nondistinctive groups is common in
jority influence (e.g., Baker & Petty, 1994; Kruglanski& mainstream mediaandmay notbe perceivedas being particu-
larly salientby eitherindividualsin the targetmarketor those
in the nontargetmarket(Penaloza, 1996). Thus, such adver-
tisements targetingnondistinctivegroups should not lead to
that
2The assumption numeric minority-majority influences
status the similarity judgments or induce dissimilarity judgments
awareness the distinctive
of attribute with
associated one's self andothers
doesnotexclude possibility otherfactors
the that influence salience
the of among distinctivenontargetmarketsbecause the prevalence
Additional factors makespecificattributes
that distinctive of such advertisementsdoes not make their distinctive trait
groupidentity.
shouldprovoke similartheoretical
processes(e.g., socialstatus;Grier& salient. In fact, membersof distinctive segments may make
Deshpande,1999). similarityjudgments on relevantbases other than their dis-

5. 130 AAKER, BRUMBAUGH,GRIER
tinctivetraitandmay notfeel excludedfromthe targetmarket It should be noted that, although this set of stimuli in-
(Williams, Quails, & Grier, 1995). As a result, negative creasedthe externalvalidityin the experiment,it also madeit
nontarget marketeffects arenot likely to occurfor distinctive moredifficultto isolate effects attributed specific targeting
to
reviewersrelativeto nondistinctiveviewers. cues. To addressthis limitation,differencesin the advertise-
ments (including the productsfeaturedin each) were con-
trolled for statistically through the use of advertisement
EXPERIMENT1: OVERVIEW in
dummyvariablesin this experiment.Furthermore, Experi-
ments 2 and 3, we controlledfor the numberand type of tar-
Experiment1 examines the hypothesizedasymmetryin tar- geting cues by relying on fictitious advertisements.
get and nontargetmarketeffects due to the interactionbe-
tween the distinctiveness of the perceived targetin the per-
suasion appeal (i.e., whether the intended target is a Participants and Procedures
minorityor majoritygroup)and viewer distinctiveness (i.e.,
numerical majority vs. minority status of the participant). Sixty-threeparticipants(60% were men; 80% were 18-25
Thus, Experiment 1 relies on a 3 (viewer distinctiveness: years of age, and 20% were 25-45 years of age) were re-
White heterosexual viewers, Black heterosexual viewers, cruitedthroughMastersof Business Administration (MBA)
and White homosexual viewers) x 3 (targetdistinctiveness: marketing classes andBlack MBA and gay andlesbiangrad-
White heterosexual target, Black heterosexual target, and at
uate studentorganizations a privatemidwesternuniversity
White homosexual target), within-subjectfactorial design. in returnfor compensationto theirgroups (e.g., $10 per par-
Viewer distinctivenessis operationalizedby using Whitein- ticipantdonated to the organization).PredominatelyWhite
dividuals as nondistinctiveviewers (74.8% of the U.S. pop- studentscomprisethe MBA class (92%)and gay and lesbian
ulation; U.S. Bureau of Census, 1994), Black viewers organizations (100%),whereasonly Black studentscomprise
(12.4% of the U.S. population; U.S. Bureau of Census, the Black studentgroup.Genderandage profileswere similar
1994), and homosexual viewers (2.5%-10% of the U.S. across the three groups. All responses in Experiment 1, as
population;Penaloza, 1996) as distinctive viewers. Target well as in the subsequentexperiments,were collected under
distinctivenessis operationalizedby selecting threepairsof privateconditionsin which participants a small groupses-
in
advertisementspretestedto be targetedsolely to one of the sion completed the questionnaireby themselves, separated
threetargetdistinctiveness groups. Thus, in this design, hy- fromothersby a tableor a cubicle.3Furthermore, participants
pothesized targetmarketeffects occur in the diagonal cells in the small groups were in the same viewer distinctiveness
and are compared to nontarget market effects in the group to minimize potential situational distinctiveness ef-
off-diagonal cells. fects (i.e., effects based on experimentalgroupcontext).4
Each participant informedthat the purposeof the ex-
was
perimentwas to obtainreactionsto current advertisingfroma
Stimuli Selection diverse group of consumersand was given a questionnaire
packet containingthe six advertisements. The first page in-
To enhanceexternalvalidity,real advertisements were used. cludedthe introduction instructions
and requestingtheirreac-
A total of 18 print advertisementsthat targetedeach of the tionsto a seriesof advertisements. wereinstructed
Participants
for
threetargetdistinctivenessgroups(6 advertisements each to look at eachadvertisement if theywereseeing it in a mag-
as
group)werepretestedwithWhite,Black, andgay andlesbian azine and to move on to the questionswhen they were ready.
participants.From this set of 18, 2 advertisementsfor each Followingeach advertisement, participantsratedtheiratti-
target distinctiveness group were identified as being most tude towardthe advertisement = .95) on 7-point scales: 1
(a
stronglyassociatedwith thatgroupand least associatedwith (verybad) to 7 (verygood), 1 (veryunfavorable) 7 (veryfa-
to
the othertwo groups by membersof all of the groups.Each vorable),and 1 (dislikeverymuch)to 7 (likeverymuch).Then,
advertisementtargeted a particularviewer distinctiveness
groupthroughmultiplecues, includingsources in the adver-
tisement (i.e., White, Black, or White gay and lesbian
3Thisprocedure adoptedbecausepriorresearchsuggeststhatattitudi-
was
sources), advertisingcopy (e.g., "Coca-Colasalutes Black nal responses to majority and minority sources can differ depending on
Historythis monthand always"),and signs or symbols asso- whether attitude measures are taken in public or private (Kruglanski&
ciatedwiththe group(i.e., pinktriangleor Kentecloth). The 2 Mackie, 1990). In this research,participantswererunindividuallyin isolated
advertisementstargetingBlack consumersincluded 1 for a cubiclesandwere assuredof theiranonymousparticipation; thus,the focus is
lemon-lime soft drinkand 1 for a cable movie service; the 2 on privateattitudechange ratherthanpublic compliance.
Data from two participants were eliminatedbecause of incompletere-
advertisements targetinggay andlesbianconsumersincluded
sponses, and data from six participants were eliminatedbecause they were
1 for a sportingevent and 1 featuringnovelty products(e.g., not fromone of ourthreeviewerdistinctivenessgroups.Intotal,330 observa-
T-shirts, mugs); the 2 advertisementstargetingWhite con- tions from 23 White, 16 Black, and 16 White gay and lesbian participants
sumersincluded 1 for a snack crackerand 1 for bluejeans. were used in the analyses.

6. NONTARGETMARKETSAND VIEWERDISTINCTIVENESS 131
to assess who they perceivedto be the targetof the advertise- comparethe reactionsof minorityandmajorityviewer groups
ment,participants were askedto describethe intended targetof to advertisements targetingmembersof minorityandmajority
the advertisement completinga checklistthatincludedeth-
by groupsto assess whetherthe patternof responsesproposedis
nicity (Hispanic, Asian, Caucasian,African American,and evident (Maxwell & Delaney, 1990). See Table 1 for means.
other); sexualpreference (bisexual;heterosexual straight;
or and The expectedViewer Distinctivenessx TargetDistinctive-
homosexual, lesbian,or gay);and 13 filleritems,includingage, ness interaction significant,
was F(4, 329) = 5.93,p < .01. Con-
gender,socioeconomicbackground, education.Afterpar-
and sistent with past literature,
contrastsshowed that individuals
ticipantsfinishedthe questionsfor all six advertisements, they who were in the nontarget markethadsignificantlyless favor-
completedthis checklistto describethemselves.Finally,to as- able attitudesrelativeto those in the targetmarket(target,M =
sess if participants'perceptions distinctiveness
of were in line 4.59; nontarget, = 4.02), F(1, 329) = 13.22, p < .01. Next,
M
withtheoperationalizations, participants askedto estimate
were analysesto comparethe attitudes Black andgay andlesbian
of
theproportion theU.S. population wasWhite,Black,and
of that viewer distinctivenessgroupswith those of the White viewer
gay andlesbian,respectively. The orderof advertisements was distinctivenessgroup within and off the diagonal were con-
counterbalanced, therewere no ordereffects.
and ducted.As expected,distinctiveparticipants liked the adver-
tisementstargetedtowardtheir respective groupsmore than
nondistinctiveviewers liked the advertisements targetedto-
Results wardtheirgroup (distinctivetarget,M = 4.75; nondistinctive
target,M= 4.37), F(1, 329) = 2.15, p < .07, signalingmorefa-
To check the targetdistinctiveness manipulation, participants' vorable target market effects among distinctive versus
estimates White,Black,andgay andlesbianpopulations
of were nondistinctive viewers.Incontrast, nondistinctiveviewersdis-
As
evaluated. expected,participants perceivedbothBlackindi- liked advertisementstargetingothers more than distinctive
viduals (M = 21.2%) and gay and lesbian individuals(M = viewers disliked advertisements targetingothers (distinctive
11.5%)to be numericminorities Whiteindividuals be a
and to M
nontarget, = 4.18; nondistinctive nontarget, = 3.80), F(1,
M
numeric majority = 60.4%).To ensurethatparticipants'
(M un- 329) = 4.49, p < .05. These resultsindicatethatmoreunfavor-
derstanding theintended
of markets
target matched threetar-
the able nontarget marketeffects occur for nondistinctiveversus
get distinctiveness groups,responses thetarget
to market check- distinctiveviewers, as predicted.
listforeachadvertisement werecompared theintended
to target
distinctivenessgroup for that advertisement. participants
All
correctly identified intended
the for
targets all advertisements as Discussion
evaluated through theirresponses thetarget
to market checklists.
Thedatawereanalyzedwith a 3 x 3 within-subject factorial The results of Experiment1 show that the effects of target
analysis of variance (ANOVA) crossing viewer distinctive- marketingare moderatedby viewer distinctiveness. Favor-
ness andtargetdistinctiveness.To statisticallycontrolfor the able targetmarketeffects arestrongerfor distinctiveviewers,
six different advertisementsand products, all analyses in- whereasunfavorable nontargetmarketeffects arestronger for
cludedfive advertisement product
or factors(nestedwithintar- nondistinctiveviewers. This asymmetry was predictedbe-
get distinctiveness groups). Also, to control for repeated cause of the differentialimportance placed on a traitbasedon
measuresacross55 participants, analysesincluded52 par-
all its distinctiveness.More specific, we proposedthat numeric
ticipant factors(nestedwithinviewer distinctivenessgroups). minority-majority statusdrovepositive targetmarketeffects
Inthisdesign,a significantinteraction betweenviewerdistinc- and negative nontargetmarketeffects via participants'per-
tivenessandtargetdistinctiveness a plannedcontrast
and com- ceptions of similarityor dissimilarityvis-a-vis the intended
paring the mean of the diagonal cells with the mean of the target.Consistentwith identificationtheory, this notion im-
off-diagonal cells wereusedto assesstargetandnontarget mar- plies that viewers' interpretation targeting cues involve
of
ket effects. Additionalplannedcontrastswere conductedto theirevaluationof whetherthey are similarto a source in an
TABLE 1
Attitude
Toward Advertisement a Function Viewer TargetDistinctiveness
the as of and (Experiment
1)
Aad
Distinctive Target (Black) Distinctive Target (Gay) Nondistinctive Target (White)
ViewerDistinctiveness M SD M SD M SD
Distinctive viewer (Black) 4.80 1.24 4.16 1.39 4.21 1.46
Distinctive viewer (Gay) 4.50 1.39 4.69 1.74 3.84 1.60
Nondistinctiveviewer (White) 4.39 1.08 3.20 1.37 4.37 1.32
=
Note. Aad attitudetowardthe advertisement.

7. 132 AAKER, BRUMBAUGH,GRIER
advertisement (Kelman, 1961). The results of Experiment1 nondistinctivemajority groups. Although the independent
provide outcome-basedsupportfor this premise;the objec- variablesused in Experiment2 parallelthose of Experiment
2
tive of Experiment is to explicitly test the proposedprocess. 1, fourchangeswere madein the stimuliandprocedure. First,
In this experiment, we address the question, "If to examinetheprocesshypotheses,participants wereaskedto
nondistinctive individualsmakedissimilaritybutnot similar- rate their perceptions of both felt similarity and felt
ityjudgments, how do marketers createpositive targetmarket targetedness.Second, to assess nontargetmarketeffects in a
effects among such viewers?"An understanding this pro-
of more realistic context, stimulusadvertisements targetingei-
cess, as distinctfromthatfollowed by distinctiveindividuals, therBlack or Whitecollege studentswere embeddedin a fic-
should provideadditionalinsight into the psychology of tar- titious magazinecalled On Campusthat studentparticipants
get andnontarget marketeffects, as well as the moderating in- were asked to evaluate.Third,to betterisolate the targetand
fluence of viewer distinctiveness. nontargetmarketeffects and enhanceconsistency across the
Researchin persuasionhas demonstrated consumers
that manipulated 2
conditions,Experiment relies on fictitious(vs.
may feel targetedby or excluded from an advertisement for real) advertisements.Finally, because the within-subjectde-
reasonsotherthansourcesimilarity (Williams et al., 1995).For sign of Experiment 1 may have accentuated target and
example,creativecues, such as music type, slang, or tone of nontargetmarket effects by making salient differences in
appeal, are frequentlyused by marketersto indicate the in- marketers'intendedaudiences,a between-subjectsdesign is
tendedtarget.Likewise,mediaplacementindicatesto viewers used in Experiment2 to minimize the salience of targeting
is
thatan advertisement targeted towardthemif it is placedin manipulation reducethe chance of demandeffects.
and
mediatheyroutinely (Woods, 1993).Becausesourcesimi-
use
larityshouldbe less influentialfor nondistinctive versusdis-
tinctive consumers,these other targetingcues may enhance Stimuli Development
nondistinctiveconsumers' identificationwith the advertise-
ment and thus drive targetand nontargetmarketeffects. In Two color advertisements promotingspring break vacation
otherwords,a viewer'sperception an advertisement in-
that is opportunities studentswere created.To convey the ad's
for
tendedforthem,whichmaynotnecessarily involvea matchon target, two targeting cues were used. First, we created a
the demographic traitsused by the marketer, shouldinfluence nonsourcetargetingcue: an organization campusthatwas
on
whetherthe viewerfeels targeted the advertisement re-
by and pretestedto be more associatedwith Black (White)students.
spondsfavorably(positive targetmarketeffect) versus unfa- The distinctive(nondistinctive)conditionread,
vorably(negativenontarget marketeffect).
This notion of felt similarity with an advertisingsource For SpringBreak ... Wouldn't You RatherBe Here?
suggests how the process underlying target and nontarget Langley Traveloffers many springbreaktrips,includ-
market effects maydifferfor distinctiveversusnondistinctive ing airfare,cruises,beachrentalsandactionvacations.
viewers resultingin the observedasymmetricresponses.For Pricesstartat only $199 for 5 days,4 nights.Contactthe
nondistinctive viewers, similarity with a nondistinctive African-American StudentUnion (WindsurfingClub)
sourceis not diagnosticbecausethe groupmembership nei- is and otherstudentorganizations information this
for on
thersalientnormeaningful(McGuireet al., 1979). However, special promotionaloffer.
viewers' subjectiveevaluationof whetherthey are the focus
of the marketingeffort-that is, their feelings of being tar- Second, we createda source cue by placing threestudentsin
geted (felt targetedness)-should influencetargetmarketef- the advertisement.In the nondistinctive target condition,
fects among nondistinctiveconsumers. As a consequence, threeWhitestudentsendorsedthe brand; the targetdistinc-
in
favorable target market effects should occur for tive condition, three minority studentsendorsed the brand.
nondistinctive viewers because of felt targetednessrather All other aspects of the advertisement,including tropical
than felt similarity.In other words, althoughfelt similarity beach photo, backgroundcolor, and font, were identical
may be sufficientto drivetargetmarketeffects for distinctive across conditions.
consumers, it may not be adequatefor nondistinctivecon-
sumers.Experiment was conductedto testthishypothesis.
2
Participants and Procedures
EXPERIMENT2: OVERVIEW A totalof 123 participants(52%weremen; 100%were 18-25
years of age; 39 were Black and 84 were White) were re-
Experiment2 relies on a 2 (viewer distinctiveness:White cruitedvia a campus electronic mail notice to participatein
viewersandBlack viewers) x 2 (targetdistinctiveness:White marketingresearchfor $5. All were told that the purposeof
targetand Black target)between-subjectsdesign to evaluate the researchwas to evaluate a prototypeof a new magazine
the proposed asymmetries in the causes of target and for college students.The magazine containedthree articles
nontarget market effects among distinctive minority and unrelatedto the distinctivenessmanipulationsand two ficti-

8. NONTARGETMARKETSAND VIEWERDISTINCTIVENESS 133
tious color advertisements;the first was a filler advertise- A 2 x 2 ANOVA crossing viewer distinctivenessand tar-
ment, whereasthe second was the targetadvertisement. get distinctivenessparalleledthe resultsfoundin Experiment
Participantswere assignedrandomlyto the targetdistinc- 1. Individualsin the nontargetversus targetmarkethad less
tive or nondistinctivecondition and asked to read the maga- favorableattitudestowardthe advertisement (nontarget, =M
zine as they normally do. When finished, participants 3.29; target,M = 4.37), F(1, 122) = 11.52, p < .01. Further-
evaluated each advertisement,the editorial content of the more, contrastsshowed that favorabletargetmarketeffects
magazine,the magazine'slayout,andtheiroverallperception were strongerfor distinctive versus nondistinctiveviewers
of the magazine,consistentwith the cover story.Next, partic- (distinctivetarget,M= 4.78; nondistinctivetarget,M= 4.14),
ipantswere askedtheirattitudetowardeach advertisement (a F(1, 122) = 2.74, p < .05. Nontarget market effects were
= .96) andthencompletedthreefelt targetedness questions("I strongerfor nondistinctiveversus distinctive viewers (dis-
feel the advertisementwas intendedfor people like me," "I tinctive nontarget,M = 3.81; nondistinctivenontarget,M =
don't believe I was in the targetmarketthe companycreated 3.08), F(1, 122) = 2.74, p < .05.
the advertisementfor" [reversecoded], and "The advertiser To explore whetherthe impactof targetingon attitudesis
madethatadvertisement appealto people like me").These
to mediated by felt similarity for distinctive viewers and felt
felt targetednessitems were evaluated on 7-point scales: 1 targetednessfor nondistinctiveviewers, a series of regres-
(disagreecompletely)to 7 (agree completely),a = .90. Partic- sions were conducted(Baron& Kenny, 1986). The firstset of
ipantsthen completedfive questionsevaluatinghow similar equationsrepresentsthe effect of the targetingmanipulation
they felt to sources in the advertisementsbased on overall on felt similarity, felt targetedness,and attitudetoward the
lifestyle, culturalbackground,dress, appearance,and basic advertisement.The second set examines felt similarity and
values: 1 (not at all similar) to 7 (very similar), a = .87 felt targetednessas predictorsof attitudetoward the adver-
(Whittler,1989). To assess who they perceivedto be the tar- tisement.The thirdset includesFelt Similarityx Viewer Dis-
get of the advertisement,participantscompletedthe checklist tinctivenessand Felt Targetednessx Viewer Distinctiveness
used in Experiment 1. Finally, participantscompleted the as predictorsof attitudetowardthe advertisement examine
to
checklistto describethemselvesandestimatedthe proportion the moderating role of viewer distinctivenesson the main ef-
of the U.S. populationthat was Black and White. fects of felt targetednessand felt similarity.The final set of
equationsincludes all independentvariablesused previously
Results to assess the effects of felt similarityand felt targetednessas
mediatorsof the impactof targetingon attitude towardthe ad-
All participants correctlyidentifiedthe intendedtargetsfor all vertisement, andimpactof viewer distinctivenessas a moder-
advertisements evaluated
as through theirresponses thetarget
to atorof these effects. In these analyses,viewer distinctiveness
marketchecklists.All participants recognizedthatBlacks
also was coded as 1 for distinctive (Black) viewers and 0 for
werea minority group,whereas Whiteswerea majority group. nondistinctive(White) viewers. Also, targetdistinctiveness
Analysis of the resultsfor the filler advertisement (which was coded as 1 for advertisements targeting distinctive
was forlunchmeatandcontainedonly a sandwich;no specific (Black) viewers and 0 for advertisements targeting
targeting cues) showedthatdistinctiveness no effect on felt
had nondistinctive(White) viewers. Table 2 shows the means in
targetedness or attitudetowardthe advertisement, < 1,ps >
Fs each cell; Table 3 shows the mediationresults.
.20. However,felt targetedness favorably influencedattitudes Theresultsfromthefirstset of equations indicatethatthe in-
for all viewers,F(1, 122)= 8.01,p < .05, indicating if a par-
that teraction betweenviewerdistinctiveness targetdistinctive-
and
ticipant did feel targetedby the lunch meat advertisement, ness was significant attitude
for toward advertisement
the (2.11,
morefavorableattitudes resulted.These resultssuggestedthat p < .01),feltsimilarity(1.64,p < .01),andfelttargetedness (2.02,
in the absenceof targetingcues, viewer distinctivenessalone p < .01), as expected.The resultsfromthe secondset of equa-
does not heightentargetedness enhanceattitudes.
or tions show thatfelt similarity favorablyinfluencedattitude to-
TABLE 2
AttitudeTowardthe Advertisement,Felt Targetedness, and Felt Similarity a Function
as
of Viewer and Target Distinctiveness (Experiment
2)
Aad Targetedness Similarity
Distinctive Nondistinctive Distinctive Nondistinctive Distinctive Nondistinctive
Target (Black) Target (White) Target (Black) Target (White) Target (Black) Target (White)
ViewerDistinctiveness M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
Distinctive viewer (Black) 4.78 1.39 3.81 1.25 3.86 1.28 3.89 1.67 4.34 1.40 3.15 1.27
Nondistinctiveviewer (White) 3.08 1.68 4.14 1.55 3.16 1.82 5.30 1.28 3.47 1.29 3.91 1.19
=
Note. Aad attitudetowardthe advertisement.

9. 134 AAKER, BRUMBAUGH,GRIER
TABLE 3
MediationAnalysis (Experiment
2)
Dependent Variable
Aad
Targetedness Similarity EquationSet
Equation Equation
Set 1 Set 1 1 2 2 3 3 4
Independentvariable
Viewer distinctiveness -1.41 (.01) -.32 (ns) -.76 (ns) - - 2.58 (.01) .80 (ns) .28 (ns)
Targetdistinctiveness -2.14 (.01) -1.06 (.01) -.45 (.04) -. 12 (ns)
Viewer x TargetDistinctiveness 2.11 (.01) 2.02 (.01) 1.64 (.01) -- .26 (ns)
Targetedness -- -.34 (.01) - .46 (.01) - .43 (.05)
x
Targetedness Viewer Distinctiveness - - -.42 (.02) - -.49 (.01)
Similarity - .48 (.01) - .31 (.02) .07 (ns)
Similarityx Viewer Distinctiveness - - --- .39 (.06) .62 (.01)
R2 .27 .09 .15 .14 .15 .24 .21 .37
The first numberin the table is the regressioncoefficient with p value in parentheses.
Note. Aad= attitudetowardthe advertisement.
wardthe advertisement (.48, p < .01) as did felt targetedness tive target market viewers felt more similar to like-type
(.34, p < .01). As predicted,these effects are moderated by sources than did nondistinctivetarget marketviewers, and
viewerdistinctiveness. Morespecific,the thirdset of equations this felt similarity, in turn, favorably influenced their atti-
demonstrates theimpactof felt similarity attitude
that on toward tudes. In contrast, felt similarity did not differ for
the advertisement strongerfor distinctiveviewers (.70, p <
is nondistinctiveindividuals viewing sources like or not like
.01) thanfor nondistinctive viewers(.31, p < .02). In addition, them. Rather,nondistinctivetargetmarketviewers felt more
the impactof felt targetedness attitude
on toward advertise-
the targetedby advertisements intendedfor theirgroupthandid
ment was significantonly for nondistinctive viewers (.46, p < distinctivetargetmarketviewers,andthis felt targetedness, in
.01) but not for distinctiveviewers(.04, ns), as predicted. turn, favorably influenced attitudes. These results suggest
Finally,a modelincludingall independent variables pre-
as that distinctiveand nondistinctiveviewers differ in the pro-
dictorsof attitude towardthe advertisement shows thatthe in- cess by whichtheirattitudesareformedor alteredin response
tended target no
manipulation longerimpacts attitudetoward the to targeted advertisements.The next step is to understand
advertisement (.26, ns), indicating thatfelt similarityand felt what felt similarityand targetednessrepresentin relationto
targetedness mediate impactof intended
the target attitude
on to- consumerattitudestowardtargetedmarketingefforts.
wardthe advertisement. Furthermore, predicted, similar-
as felt Attitudesaregenerallythoughtto be formedthroughpro-
ity is significant distinctive
for viewers(.69,p < .01) butnotfor cesses of identificationor internalization(Kelman, 1961).5
nondistinctive felt
viewers(.07,ns), whereas targetedness sig- is Identification occurswhen one adoptsthe position advocated
nificantfor nondistinctive viewers(.43,p < .01) butnot fordis- by anotherbecause doing so preservesor enhancessome as-
tinctiveviewers(-.06, ns). pect of self relatedto the other advocatingthe position. For
example,a young manmay be persuaded a sneakeradver-
by
Discussion tisement featuringanotheryoung man because he feels that
the spokespersonhas similar needs, goals, and a common
The resultsof Experiment2 replicatethose of Experiment1, lifestyle. In suchcases, persuasionmay occurbecauseone ac-
showing againthattargetand nontargetmarketeffects exist, cepts the message of a similarother and desires to maintain
butthey aremoderated viewerdistinctiveness.Individuals
by positive self-esteem in light of their sharedtraits(e.g., Wil-
in the nontargetmarketof an advertisement more unfa-
had liams & Qualls, 1989). In contrast, internalizationoccurs
vorableattitudestowardthat advertisement thanindividuals
in the target market, and this effect was stronger for
nondistinctiveviewers. On the otherhand,individualsin the 5Inaddition identification interalization,processesof compliance
to and can
target marketof an advertisementhad more favorableatti- underliepersuasion outcomes.Here,one adoptsanother's positionbecauseof
tudes toward that advertisement than individuals in the normative rewards occurbecauseof the attitude
that changeorin fearof punish-
mentsthatoccurbecauseof noncompliance (Kelman,1958).However,because
nontarget market,and this effect was strongerfor distinctive is a
advertising generally privately-accepted messagenot delivered powerful
by
viewers. More important,the mediationresults showed that othersdirectly inducesatti-
related the viewer,it is less likelythatadvertising
to
this asymmetryis the resultof differenttypes of feelings gen- tudechangeviacompliance to
(relative identification interalization);
and there-
eratedby distinctive versus nondistinctiveviewers. Distinc- fore,the compliance processwas not exploredin this research.

10. NONTARGETMARKETSAND VIEWERDISTINCTIVENESS 135
when the attitudeadvocated is congruentwith one's value differentlyfor each of these two tasks. For the first task, it is
system andone finds it internallysatisfyingto adoptit. Thus, operationalized the school in which an undergraduate
as stu-
a differentyoung manmay be persuadedby the same sneaker dent is enrolled. Two schools, nursing and business, each
advertisementbecause he feels the spokespersonis knowl- comprise about 10%of the undergraduate populationat the
edgeableaboutwhich sneakersaremost effective on the bas- school wherethe studywas conducted,whereasthe engineer-
ketball court. Such expert opinion is thought to influence ing and arts and science schools each comprise about 40%.
attitudesvia internalization because one's desire to be accu- Thus,viewer distinctivenesswas high for studentsfromnurs-
rateandcorrectis confirmedor enhancedby being congruent ing or business schools, but low for studentsfrom the engi-
with the expert (Wilson & Sherrell, 1993). neering or arts and sciences schools. The second task was
The resultsof Experiment suggest thatfelt similarityand
2 identicalto Experiment in the respectthatdistinctivenessis
2
targetednessreflect differentmechanismsby which positive operationalized as a numerical majority-minority ethnic
targetmarketing effects may occur.As notedpreviously,sim- group(for purposesof replication).
ilarity effects occur via an identificationprocess (Kelman,
1961), wherebyindividualsinfer thattheirtastes and prefer- Stimuli Development
ences arecommonto those of the sourceand,therefore,adopt
the attitude or behavior of the source (Eagley, Wood, & For the first task, four advertisementspromotinga web site
Chaiken, 1978). When this source is a character an adver-
in where studentscould purchasetextbooksat discountedprices
tisement, for example, the tendency to infer similaritywith weredeveloped. sourcesandtextusedin theadvertisements
The
the source should lead to more favorableattitudes(i.e., posi- wereidentical, exceptforthetextbooks pictured (tailored each
to
tive target market effects). Therefore, distinctive viewers' school) and the headlinein the appeal ("Hey Nursing/Busi-
feelings of similaritywith sources who sharethe distinctive, ness/Engineering/Arts ScienceStudents!"). strengthen
& To the
personally-relevant shouldlead to identificationwith the
trait targetdistinctiveness the websiteat thebottomof
manipulation,
source.However,nondistinctiveviewers shouldnot feel sim- the appeal incorporated name of the target school (i.e.,
the
ilarbecausethe traitthey shareis not as personallyrelevantor For
www.cheaptexts.com/nursing/). thesecondtask,thetwo ad-
salient.Therefore,sharedgroupmembershiphas little influ- vertisements were those used in Experiment However,to be
2.
ence. Rather,the results of Experiment2 suggest thatfavor- consistentwiththe cover storyof the experiment, websitead-
a
able targetmarketeffects are evoked among nondistinctive dresswas addedat the bottomof each appeal.See Appendix.
target marketconsumers because the feelings of being tar-
geted promptthem to accept the advertisedposition as their Participants and Procedures
own. That is, viewers who perceive that an advertisement is
designed to resonate with them should base their attitudes A total of 180 participants(55%were men; 98% were 18-25
more on an assessment of value congruencyrelative to per- years of age, and2%were 25-45 yearsof age; 21 participants
ceived similaritywith the source. were enrolled in business, 18 in nursing,78 in engineering,
In summary,we hypothesizethattargetmarketeffects oc- and 56 in arts and science; 11 studentswere Black, 39 were
curfor distinctiveconsumersvia identification,whereastarget Asian, and 123 were White) were recruitedvia campus flier
market effects occurfornondistinctive consumersvia internal- and electronic mail notices inviting them to participatein
ization.Exploringthis predictionis the primaryobjective of Internet-based marketing researchfor $5. Participants, in-
run
Experiment The secondobjectiveis to ensurethattheresults
3. dividually,were assignedrandomlyto one of the four adver-
of the previousexperimentsare drivenby viewer distinctive- tisementsoperationalizing targetdistinctivenessfor the first
ness, ratherthanpotentialconfoundingvariables,such as so- task, and one of the two advertisements operationalizing tar-
cial categoryor stigmatization. Therefore,Experiment relies
3 get distinctivenessfor the second task. Participantsreceived
on anotheroperationalization distinctivenessand includes
of anexperimentbookletcontainingthe two appealsfor theiras-
processmeasuresof identification internalization.
and signed conditions;the questionsfollowed each appeal.After
viewing the advertisement,they completed the attitudeto-
EXPERIMENT3: OVERVIEW wardthe advertisement measures(Task 1, a = .81; Task2, a =
.93), seven identificationmeasures(Task 1, a = .82; Task2, a
Experiment3 relies on the same design as in Experiment2, =.85; Mackie, 1987; O'Reilly & Chatman,1986), and three
but uses two conceptualreplications(termedtasks later) to internalization measures (Task 1, a = .83; Task 2, a = .88;
determinethe extent to which identificationand internaliza- O'Reilly & Chatman,1986).6Finally,participants completed
tion arethe underlyingprocessesdrivingtargetmarketeffects
for distinctive and nondistinctive individuals. Under the
guise of evaluating advertisementsfor two new web retail Four additionalidentificationmeasureswere included in Experiment3
outlets,participantswere exposed to two advertisementsand based on Mackie (1987). However, because these items yielded low
askedto complete identification,internalization, attitude
and inter-itemcorrelations
amongeach other,as well as the threeotheridentifica-
measuresfor each. Viewer distinctivenessis operationalized tion measures(O'Reilly & Chatman,1986), they were not used.

11. 136 AAKER, BRUMBAUGH,GRIER
the targetednessmeasuresused in Experiments1 and2 (Task with our hypotheses.As expected,identification a favor-
had
1, a = .92; Task 2, a = .95), measuresof attitudetowardall ableinfluenceon attitudes all fourmodels,suggestingthatif
in
target groups, and estimates of the proportionof all target people identifywith the advertisement source,they are likely
groupsat the universityas manipulation checks. to adopta favorableattitude.More important, threeof the
in
four regressions,the interactionof identificationand viewer
distinctivenesswas significant and positive, indicatingthat
Results identification a greaterinfluenceon attitudesfor distinc-
had
tive viewerscompared nondistinctive
to viewers.Furthermore,
The patternof manipulation checks mirrored those found in as expected,the interaction internalization distinctive-
of and
Experiments 1 and 2. Participantswhose academic school ness was significantand negativefor all fourregressions.The
matched the school mentioned in the appeal felt more tar- expectedpositivemaineffect of internalization significant
was
geted by the advertisement (target,M = 4.61; nontarget, =
M only for Task 2, however.7These resultsprovidepartialsup-
4.35; p < .03). Similarly, participantswhose ethnic group portfor the premisethatinternalization a strongerimpact
has
matchedthe grouptargetedby the second advertisement felt on attitudetowardthe advertisement nondistinctive
for view-
marginally more targeted(target,M = 4.50; nontarget,M = ers thandistinctiveviewers.
4.20; p < .07). As anticipated, therewere no differencesin at-
titudetowardthe differentschools (business,M = 5.05; nurs-
ing, M = 5.06; artsand sciences, M = 5.06; engineering,M= Discussion
4.83;ps > .20). AttitudetowardAmericanWhitestudentsand
Americanminoritystudentsdid not differ (p > .20), although The contribution Experiment was twofold.First,the local
of 3
attitude toward internationalstudents was slightly lower distinctiveness manipulation usedin Experiment extendsthe
3
(White,M = 5.24; ethnicminority,M = 5.19; international, M generalizability of theresultsin Experiments and2, strength-
1
= 4.95; p < .05). Furthermore, both the business and nursing ening the premisethatviewer distinctiveness(rather thanpo-
schools were perceived as distinctive comparedto the arts tentialconfoundedvariables,such as social categoryor stig-
and sciences and engineeringschools (business,M = 16.2%; matization)accounts for the asymmetricattitudinaleffects.
nursing,M = 11.1%;engineering,M = 29.1%; arts and sci- Second,the analysescomplementthe findingsof Experiment
ences, M= 43.7%;all pairwisecomparisonssignificantatp < 2, suggestingthatidentification drivesfavorable targetmarket
.05), and Americanminoritystudentsand international stu- effects more for distinctive versus nondistinctiveviewers,
dents were both perceivedas distinctivecomparedto White whereasinternalization drivesfavorabletargetmarketeffects
students(White,M= 60.1%;ethnicminority,M= 25.5%;in- more for nondistinctive versusdistinctiveviewers.
ternational, =14.3%;all pairwisecomparisonssignificant
M Although the influence of internalizationon attitudesre-
at ps < .05). ceived less convergentsupportacross both tasks, this unex-
To test the hypothesisthatan identification processunder- pected result is consistent with the notion thatidentification
lies the persuasion effects for distinctiveviewers exposed to a and internalizationprocess can occur simultaneouslyor hi-
targetedadvertisementwhile an internalization process un- erarchically (Kelman, 1958, 1961). Although internaliza-
derlies those for nondistinctiveviewers, attitudetowardthe tion may be a primary route of persuasion (as directly
advertisement was regressedon viewer distinctiveness(a di- supportedin Task 1 and indirectlysuggested in Experiment
chotomousvariable),identification,internalization, identifi- 2), processes of identificationmay also play a role in the per-
cation by viewer distinctiveness, and internalization by suasion process for nondistinctiveviewers. Indeed, Mackie
viewer distinctiveness.We expected thatthe main effects of (1987, p. 51) suggested that"theoperationof factorssuch as
identificationand internalization would be positive and sig- majorityendorsementillustrate difficulties of maintaining
nificant,indicatingthatbothlead to morefavorableattitudes. such distinctions as those between internalizationand iden-
However,these main effects should be moderatedby viewer tification (Kelman 1958)" and highlights conditions under
distinctiveness. The interactionbetween identificationand which internalizationand identification can jointly occur.
viewer distinctivenessshould be significantand positive, in- Additional research is needed to pull apartthese two pro-
dicating that identificationhas a strongereffect on attitudes cesses to better understand when or to what extent
for distinctive than nondistinctiveviewers. The interaction nondistinctiveindividualsmay follow an identificationpro-
betweeninternalization viewer distinctivenessshouldbe
and
negativeand significant,indicatingthatinternalization a has
weaker or nonsignificant effect for distinctive versus
nondistinctiveviewers.
Theresultsof theseregressions withall individ- Identification interalizationwerehighlycorrelated
and (Task1,p = .52,p <
(performed .01;Task2, p = .56,p < .01), andwhenentered in the regression
first model,in-
uals andonly with individualswho felt targetedby the adver- teralization was positiveand significant.However,it becamenonsignificant
tisementat 3.5 or higheron the felt targetedness manipulation in
whenidentification included themodel,suggesting thetwo processes
was that
check for each task) are shown in Table 4 and are consistent may operate jointly or hierarchically.

12. NONTARGET
MARKETS
ANDVIEWER
DISTINCTIVENESS 137
4
TABLE
Regression Results for Attitude Toward the Advertisement, Felt Targetedness, and Felt Similarity as a Function
of Viewer TargetDistinctiveness
and (Experiment
3)
Task I Task 2
All Observationsa TargetedOnly All Observationsa Targeted Onlyc
Intercept 2.97(.00) 2.69(.00) 1.24(00) 2.32 (.00)
Viewer distinctiveness -1.50 (.03) -1.44 (.05) .51 (ns) -.37 (ns)
Identification .35 (.00) .42 (.00) .68 (.00) .35 (.02)
Interalization -.02 (ns) -.03 (ns) .11 (ns) .26 (.07)
x
IdentificationViewer Distinctiveness .73 (.00) .74 (.00) .15 (ns) .58 (.03)
x
IntemalizationViewer Distinctiveness -.46 (.01) -.48 (.02) -.34 (.07) -.64 (.01)
Note. Thefirstnumber thetableis theregression
in coefficient p valuein parentheses.
with Comparisons basedon one-tailed
are tests.
n = 173. bn= 141. n = 103.
cess, ratherthan one that more closely mirrorsa process of suggesting thatthe determination whetherthe majorityor
of
internalizationsuggested in this research. minority source is more influential depends on moderating
variables,such as public versusprivateattitudes(Moscovici,
1980), expectations(Baker& Petty, 1994), and attitudetype
GENERAL DISCUSSION (e.g., old vs. new opinions; Fazio, 1979; Kruglanski &
Mayseless, 1987). This researchsuggests that,in a consumer
The purposeof this researchwas to shed light on the intended behaviorcontext,viewerdistinctivenessis animportant mod-
andunintended effects of targetmarketing examiningcon- eratorof source effects.
by
In addition,this researchextends the work on distinctive-
sumer responses to targetedadvertisements among both the
marketand the nontargetmarket.The results demon- ness theoryby showingthatviewerdistinctiveness impactsthe
target
stratethat favorabletarget marketeffects were strongerfor interpretation of, processingof, andreactionto persuasion ap-
membersof distinctiveversusnondistinctive groups,whereas peals (Forehand& Deshpande, 1999; Grier & Brumbaugh,
unfavorable nontarget market effects arestronger members
for 1999; Wooten, 1995). These findingsdemonstrate targetthat
of nondistinctive versusdistinctivegroups.Furthermore, these marketing operatesthrough differentmechanismsfor distinc-
are the result of distinctfeelings evoked in dis- tive andnondistinctive individuals. Thatis, whethersimilarity
asymmetries
tinctive versus nondistinctiveindividuals. Favorable target ortargetedness felt by targetandnontarget
is membersappears
marketeffects occurfor distinctiveviewersbecauseof height- to influencethe natureof the consumer'ssubsequent process-
ened levels of felt similaritywith a source,whereasfavorable ing of the advertisement. Additionalinvestigationof the ante-
effects for nondistinctiveviewersresultfromfelt cedentsand consequencesof differencesin the use of source
targetmarket
targetedness basedon some aspectsof the entireconfiguration and nonsourcecues among distinctiveversus nondistinctive
of advertisement cues. Unfavorablenontargetmarketeffects consumersis neededto lend additionaltheoreticalinsight.
occurfor nondistinctive viewersbecauseof perceiveddissimi- Froma moreappliedperspective,these resultssuggestthat
laritywith a source,whereasunfavorable nontarget marketef- becausefeelings of similaritywith the sourcedrive favorable
fects occurfor distinctiveviewersbecauseof perceivedexclu- targetmarketeffects for distinctiveviewers,advertisers court-
sion from the intendedtargetmarket. ing minoritysegmentsmay considerpaying particular atten-
This set of findings suggests thattargetmarketing induces tion to the selectionof sourcesin advertisements have the
that
more identificationwith the sources among distinctiverela- most impact on the intended target segment. In contrast,
tive to nondistinctivegroups but internalization the mes-
of sourcesappear play a less pivotalrole for nondistinctive
to in-
sage among nondistinctiveversus distinctive groups. These dividuals;therefore, advertisers may need to be moremindful
resultsreplicatethe basic findingthatmajoritysourcescan in- of the nonsourcetargetingcues they choose to include in ad-
fluence attitudesvia an internalization process(wherethe au- vertisements aimedat majoritysegments.These findingsalso
dience views the majority opinion as more likely to be imply thatcombiningdistinctivesources with othertargeting
correct;Deutsch & Gerard,1955). However, they also sug- cues that attractnondistinctiveviewers may be an effective
gest thatthis process occurs only when the viewer belongs to way of reachingboth distinctiveand nondistinctive individu-
the same majoritygroup as the source. In conditions where als. Thus,through carefulstrategy, advertiser
an maybe ableto
the viewer is of a numerically rare or distinctive group, reachmultipletargetsegmentswith one advertising appeal.
greaterpersuasionoccurs when the sourceis of the same mi- However,these resultsalso highlighta potentialdownside
nority group. In these conditions, an identificationprocess to targetingminority (relative to majority)groups: Feeling
occurs (Kelman, 1961). In this light, our findings conceptu- excludedfromthe targetmarketappearsto lead to less favor-
ally parallelmore recent findings in the persuasionliterature able advertising responses,but only amongnondistinctivein-

13. 138 AAKER, BRUMBAUGH,GRIER
dividuals.Thatis, reducedlevels of persuasionoccur when a wouldallow for an understanding the interaction ethnic-
of of
member of a numericalmajoritygroup views an advertise- ity and socioeconomic variables.In addition,othertypes of
ment featuringa minority group member. Furthermore, al- targetingcues, such as media placement(e.g., Ebony maga-
thoughsome researchshows thatpeople process stigmatized zine vs. People magazine), humor type (e.g., sarcasm vs.
sources such as gays, lesbians, and AfricanAmericanssimi- slapstick), music type (e.g., rap vs. classical), and colors in
larly (Petty, Fleming, & White, 1999), our results also sug- advertisements (e.g., brightvs. dark)need to be examinedto
gest that potential backlash effects may vary dependingon determineconditions under which nontargetmarketeffects
the specific marketbeing targeted. may be minimized(e.g., mediaplacement)or enhanced(e.g.,
source or languagein copy).
Finally,this researchfocused on the positiveimpactof tar-
AND FUTURE RESEARCH
LIMITATIONS get marketing those in the targetmarketand the negative
on
impact of targetmarketingon those in the nontarget market.
Thisresearch severallimitations affordareasforfuture
has that However,the oppositepattern resultsalso meritsexamina-
of
research. Moreimportant, these findingscontribute ourun-
to tion. More specific, underwhatconditionswill targetmarket-
derstanding of the processesunderlying responses to targeted ing have a negative impacton targetmarketmembersand a
marketing amongbothtargetandnontarget market consumers. positive impacton nontarget marketmembers?For example,
However,minimalattention paidto thepractical theo-
was and the affinityof Generation-X membersto the "offbeatandun-
reticalconsiderations the nontarget
of marketeffects. For ex- usual"suggeststhattargetingthis marketdirectlymay have a
ample, what are the commercialand social effects of the ob- negativeimpact,whereasa more indirectapproach (e.g., one
served processes, and what can be done to limit negative thatappearsto targetanothermarket)may prove more effec-
effects? Althoughconsiderableresearchhas highlightedpo- tive. Furthermore, underwhatconditionswill creatingandnur-
tentialconsequencesof targetmarketing (e.g., perpetuation of turing the perceptionof an existing nontarget marketbenefit,
social stereotypesand exploitationof vulnerableconsumer rather thanlimitor hurt,marketers' objectives(Turow,1997)?
segments; Ringhold, 1995; Smith & Cooper-Martin, 1997; Addressingthese questionswoulddemonstrate continued
that
Spradley,1993), this streamin general,and this researchin in the
progress understanding dynamicsof targetmarketing are
particular,have not yet determined best way to limit these
the enhancedby investigationsof the nontarget market.
potentialnegativeconsequences.Insightintohow to acknowl-
edge andcommunicate withparticular groupswho maybenefit
from andappreciate targetingefforts(Elliott, 1994;Penaloza, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
1996)-while minimizing negative effects-is needed for
marketers who targetmultiplesegments. The authorsall contributedequallyand sincerelythankCindy
Furthermore, such marketplace targetingconflicts need to Huffman, JohnMury, Jay Dean, and BrianStemthalfor their
be consideredconceptuallyin light of recentresearchon the helpfulcomments earlier
on drafts. alsothank Bettman,
We Jim
PersuasionKnowledgemodel, which suggests thatconsum- Doug Holt, andKentGraysonfor facilitating collaboration
our
ers understand marketingtactics and may reactnegativelyto on this project.
This researchwas fundedin partby the GSB,
communications are seen as manipulative inappropri-
that or StanfordUniversity.
ate attemptsto persuade.Friestadand Wright(1994) distin-
guishedbetweentargetingeffortsthatareseen as welcome or
appropriate attemptsto serve a targetmarketand those that REFERENCES
are viewed as manipulativeor inappropriate. This research
suggeststhattargetmarketmembersmay not necessarilyper- Aaker,J. (1999, February). malleableself: The role of self-expressionin
The
ceive targetmarketingto be an inappropriate tactic and thus persuasion.Journalof MarketingResearch, 36, 45-57.
Aaker, J., & Williams, P. (1998). Empathyversus pride:The influence of
may respond favorably toward targetingefforts. However, emotionalappealsacross cultures.Journal of ConsumerResearch,25,
more researchon how differentviewer groupsuse targeting 241-261.
cues to decideif targetedcommunications welcome orex-
are Baker,S. M., & Petty, R. E. (1994, July). Majorityand minorityinfluence:
ploitativeis needed. Source-positionimbalanceas a determinant message scrutiny.Jour-
of
Anotherlimitationof this researchlies in the set of target- nal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 67(1), 5-19.
Baron,R. M., & Kenny,D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variabledis-
ing cues used in the research.Althoughsimilarto those used tinctionin social psychologicalresearch:Conceptual,strategic,andsta-
by advertisers,these cues were somewhat simplistic. Future tistical considerations.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
researchis neededto furtherexamine multiplebases of simi- 51(6), 1173-1182.
larity, including combinations of demographic, Brumbaugh, M. (1997). Targetingtwo worlds: Theimpactof source and
A.
other cues on culture-bound responses to targeted advertising
psychographic,and cultural variables (Aaker & Williams,
(WorkingPaper).Cleveland,OH: Case WesternReserve University.
1998). To illustrate,exploring responses to advertisements Cota, A., & Dion, K. (1986). Salience of genderand sex compositionof ad
targetedtoward yuppies versus buppies, both within those hoc groups:An experimentaltest of distinctivenesstheory.Journal of
segmentsas well as amongothersnot in those targetmarkets, Personalityand Social Psychology,50(4), 770-776.