Marketing Letters 10:1 (1999): 63–73

© 1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers, Manufactured in The Netherlands

Corporate Advertising Pass-through onto the Brand:

Some Experimental Evidence
DANIEL A. SHEININ
College of Business and Management, University of Maryland at College Park, R.H. Smith School of
Business, 3454 Van Munching Hall, College Park, MD 20742, E-mail: dsheinin@rhsmith.umd.edu

GABRIEL J. BIEHAL
College of Business and Management, University of Maryland at College Park, R.H. Smith School of
Business, 3447 Van Munching Hall, College Park, MD 20742, E-mail: gbiehal@rhsmith.umd.edu

Abstract

While researchers and managers have speculated that corporate advertising can have an impact on brand
knowledge, to date there is no empirical support for such “pass-through.” We report on a laboratory study
manipulating the presence or absence in a brand ad of retrieval cues for subjects’ corporate advertising and their
pre-existing brand knowledge. We found evidence of pass-through, but it was moderated by the retrieval of
subjects’ pre-existing brand knowledge. Our results have theoretical and managerial implications, and suggest a
number of interesting opportunities for future research.

Key words: Corporate advertising, brand management

Corporate advertising, which communicates information about a company, represents

over $9 billion in annual spending (Belch and Belch 1996). Designed primarily to build
corporate image or increase investment (Javagli, Traylor, Gross and Lampman 1994;
Schumann, Hathcote and West 1991), corporate advertising may also influence consum-
ers’ knowledge about products marketed by the corporation (Hartigan and Finch 1986;
Winkleman 1985). This influence is critical for brand managers to understand because
they have the responsibility for building and managing consumers’ brand knowledge.
While previous corporate ad research has focussed on classification schemes based on
different messages and targets, and the implications for corporate image (Rothschild
1987; Schumann et al. 1991), it has not discussed in-depth or empirically examined
possible “pass-through” to brand knowledge. Moreover, prior brand research has empha-
sized the use of brand advertising tactics without considering possible contributions from
corporate advertising.
In this paper, we propose pass-through occurs, but is moderated by the retrieval of
consumers’ pre-existing brand knowledge. We report on empirical evidence confirming
these propositions in a lab setting. In an experiment, to form corporate ad knowledge we
first expose all subjects to the same corporate ad. Next, they see a brand ad differing in the
presence or absence of retrieval cues for knowledge about both the corporate ad and an
already known brand. Product beliefs and evaluations are then examined for pass-through.

Kluwer Journal
@ats-ss11/data11/kluwer/journals/mark/v10n1art5 COMPOSED: 11/20/98 8:43 am. PG.POS. 1 SESSION: 11
 64 SHEININ, BIEHAL

In the next section, we discuss the experiment’s theoretical background and present re-
search propositions. After describing our results, we discuss theoretical and managerial
implications, and future research directions.

1. Conceptual development

1.1 Theoretical background

In general, research shows exposure to an ad leads consumers to form knowledge about

it, which is stored in memory (MacKenzie, Lutz and Belch 1986). Thus, consumers form
knowledge about corporate ads following exposure to them, which is stored as part of
their corporate knowledge. This process is consistent with corporate advertising’s tradi-
tional purpose to build and maintain a positive corporate image (Rothschild 1987; Schu-
mann et al. 1991).
In addition to corporate ad knowledge, consumers have brand knowledge stored in
memory. Both corporate ad and brand knowledge contain beliefs, affect, and attitudes
(Garbett 1983; MacKenzie et al. 1986; Keller 1993), all of which may have an impact on
product evaluations. Typically, consumers’ product evaluations are based on a combination
of stimulus information and knowledge retrieved from memory (Lynch and Srull 1982;
Alba and Hutchinson 1987). Knowledge retrieval, in turn, is influenced by retrieval cues,
like names or identifying labels. Such cues activate knowledge in memory, leading to its
retrieval (Keller 1987). Corporate ad and brand knowledge retrieval cues may thus influ-
ence product evaluations by causing consumers to retrieve and use certain parts of their
knowledge during product processing.
Retrieved corporate ad knowledge may pass through and influence product evaluations
in a number of ways. For example, consumers may use their retrieved corporate ad
knowledge to infer new product beliefs. New beliefs are inferred using retrieved knowl-
edge (Fiske and Pavelchak 1986). For example, if consumers see a product ad from a
company which they recall advertises its environmental concerns, they may infer the
company’s products are environmentally safe. Such inferred beliefs therefore originate in
corporate ad knowledge but become associated with advertised products.
Consumers may also change existing product beliefs using retrieved corporate ad
knowledge. Existing beliefs can change through processing new, relevant information
(Crocker, Fiske and Taylor 1984). For example, if consumers are exposed to a product ad
from a company which they recall does corporate advertising on quality issues, they may
strengthen existing product quality beliefs. Finally, if consumers either infer new product
beliefs or change existing ones, they may change their existing product attitudes.

1.2 Research propositions

Within this general framework, a lack of empirical work leaves unanswered two important
questions: (1) can corporate ad knowledge pass-through onto consumers’ knowledge of
products marketed by the corporation? and (2) what factors moderate pass-through?

Kluwer Journal
@ats-ss11/data11/kluwer/journals/mark/v10n1art5 COMPOSED: 11/20/98 8:43 am. PG.POS. 2 SESSION: 11
CORPORATE ADVERTISING PASS-THROUGH ONTO THE BRAND 65

To address the first question we start with a product ad without brand retrieval cues, and
compare product evaluations with and without corporate ad retrieval cues. This provides
a straightforward test of pass-through. In this situation, we expect corporate ad retrieval
cues, like the corporate name, will cause consumers to have different product knowledge.
As previously indicated, consumers make product evaluations in the context of their
retrieved knowledge (Lynch and Srull 1982). Thus, using the processes previously de-
scribed, corporate ad knowledge retrieval cues should lead to greater pass-through.
The second question concerns moderators of pass-through. Since much research shows
information processing is influenced by the retrieval of consumers’ pre-existing knowl-
edge (Alba, Hutchinson and Lynch 1991), it seems likely that pass-through will be simi-
larly affected. Therefore, we now consider a product ad with brand retrieval cues, like the
brand’s name. If the comparative impact of the presence and absence of corporate ad
retrieval cues differs when brand retrieval cues are present versus absent, we can conclude
pass-through is moderated by the retrieval of consumers’ brand knowledge.
In this situation, we expect no change in product evaluations regardless of corporate ad
retrieval cues. Although such cues may still help consumers retrieve their corporate ad
knowledge, for two reasons they are less likely to use it to make product evaluations. First,
consumers are less likely to use a particular knowledge source if several sources have been
retrieved from memory (Alba et al. 1991). Second, since short-term memory has limited
capacity, consumers retrieving multiple knowledge sources tend to use the most diagnostic
one and place less emphasis on or completely disregard others (Lynch, Marmorstein and
Weigold 1988). As corporate ad knowledge should be less diagnostic for product evalu-
ation than brand knowledge and ad information, product evaluation should be unaffected
by corporate ad retrieval cues in the presence of brand retrieval cues. Therefore, the
retrieval of pre-existing brand knowledge should moderate corporate ad knowledge pass-
through.

2. Method

2.1 Pretests

To guide stimulus design, we conducted two pretests using a number of open-ended and
scaled questions. The first (n ⫽ 82) identified the attributes subjects associated with
“good” and “bad” corporations, and involving product categories. The following corporate
attributes were mentioned by at least 33% of subjects: financial success, environmental
friendliness, extent of recycling, management quality, brand quality, diversity and under-
graduate hiring. These attributes were used to design the corporate ad and as dependent
measures. Finally, this pretest identified four, highly-involving product categories: hiking
shoes, athletic shoes, blue jeans, and backpacks.
The second pretest (n ⫽ 73) established perceptions of and attitudes toward the four
product categories, selected brands within them, and possible corporate names. Based on
the results we selected the hiking shoe category. Subjects had the following strong and
consistent category beliefs about hiking shoes: rugged, available in a variety of colors,

Kluwer Journal
@ats-ss11/data11/kluwer/journals/mark/v10n1art5 COMPOSED: 11/20/98 8:43 am. PG.POS. 3 SESSION: 11
 66 SHEININ, BIEHAL

durable, waterproof, has extra support, fashionable, and stylish. These product category
attributes were used to design a brand ad which would contain the retrieval cue manipu-
lations.
Our brand name selection balanced two considerations. On the one hand, a brand for
which subjects had strong beliefs and attitudes, which are difficult to change (Crocker et
al. 1984), would be unlikely to show pass-through. On the other hand, the moderating
hypothesis assumes subjects have some pre-existing brand knowledge. The “New Bal-
ance” brand name met our design needs. Pretests showed that, compared with other tested
hiking shoe brands, like Nike and Timberland, subjects were moderately familiar with
New Balance, had neutral attitudes toward it, and did not know the corporate manufac-
turer. Subjects associated the brand with good quality, design and comfort, which were
used as dependent measures.
Finally, because we wanted subjects’ corporate knowledge to stem exclusively from
exposure to the corporate ad, we evaluated six fictitious company names. All had some a
priori reasonable link with the tested product category, but no expected recognition as a
corporate name. Therefore, we chose “Shenandoah” as the corporate name. Detailed
pretest results are available from the authors.

2.2 Ad stimuli, retrieval manipulations and design

The corporate ad headline was, “Young Managers Are Our Future.” The picture, taken
from a real ad, was a 4x2.5 inch color photograph, centered on an 11x8.5 inch page. It
showed three young professionals, an Asian woman, and African-American and Caucasian
males. The copy described the corporation as follows: “At the Shenandoah Company our
young designers are leading us into the global business future. Each year, we hire hun-
dreds of top college graduates in business and engineering. They are responsible for
developing 17 products which received quality awards from leading consumer magazines
in 1994. In addition to hiring many graduates, we provide internships for college students
in environmental studies. Our interns receive college credit while they help us develop
products which can be completely recycled. We are proud to have received a Presidential
Achievement Award for our efforts in environmental improvement. Our young talent is the
main reason we have grown 25% a year to reach $1 billion in global sales of outdoor
products.” Finally, the Shenandoah company name was placed at the bottom of the ad.
Because they are central in knowledge representations (Keller 1993; Mitchell and
Dacin 1996), we used the company and brand names as retrieval cues. Thus, the Shenan-
doah company name was placed at the bottom of the brand ad in the corporation ad
retrieval cue present conditions, and the New Balance name was inserted in the brand ad
copy in the brand retrieval cue present conditions.
The brand ad headline was, “The Look of Right Now.” Two pictures showed individuals
engaged in rugged outdoor activities. The third showed the hiking shoes, which had no
brand identification on them. Finally, the copy was: “Our [New Balance] shoes are the
hip-hop way to climb a mountain, a trail and a campus. [New Balance]. Go anywhere. Do
anything.” Note the corporate ad information was not directly related to product quality.

Kluwer Journal
@ats-ss11/data11/kluwer/journals/mark/v10n1art5 COMPOSED: 11/20/98 8:43 am. PG.POS. 4 SESSION: 11
CORPORATE ADVERTISING PASS-THROUGH ONTO THE BRAND 67

Thus, the study was a 2 (corporate ad retrieval cue present/absent) x 2 (brand retrieval cue
present/absent) between-subjects design. The absent/absent condition represented the
baseline to test for pass-through.

2.3 Subjects

Subjects were undergraduate juniors and seniors at a large Atlantic Region state university
who received extra class credit as a participation incentive. The original sample size was
182, but 20 subjects were eliminated because they were unfamiliar with the New Balance
brand name. Since these subjects did not have pre-existing brand knowledge, retrieval
cues would be ineffective. Thus, the final sample size was 162.

2.4 Experimental procedure

Subjects were tested in groups of about fifteen in a 30-minute session. They received one
questionnaire booklet which they filled out individually. Subjects first read general in-
structions on using the booklet, then received task instructions. They first removed the
corporate ad from an envelope, and were instructed to “...look at the ad carefully and
thoroughly, much as you would if you saw an ad that interested you. As you examine the
ad you should try to relate the ad to your own personal attitudes, lifestyle and concerns.”
Subjects could take as much time as they liked on the task. Upon completion, they
returned the ad to the envelope, and then wrote down their corporate ad thoughts. Next,
they filled out nine company belief items. Finally, they recorded their attitudes toward the
company and the corporate ad. To clear short term memory, a simple distractor task
followed.
Subjects then read instructions about the brand ad task, which were identical to those
used previously. Next, they removed the brand ad from an envelope, examined it, and,
after returning it to the envelope, wrote down their brand ad thoughts. They then rated
seventeen beliefs which could originate in four sources, namely the corporate ad, the
brand ad, and their pre-existing brand and product category knowledge. Subjects then
indicated their attitudes toward the brand and brand ad. Next, they completed questions on
brand and category familiarity, product category usage and involvement level, demo-
graphic information, and the importance of the corporate attributes described in the
corporate ad. They were also asked to guess the research purpose (none did). Finally,
subjects were fully debriefed, either in-class or upon completing the questionnaire.

2.5 Measures

Attitude toward the brand, AB, was the sum of three seven-point semantic differential
scales anchored by dislike/like, bad/good, and negative/positive. Attitudes toward the
brand ad, corporate ad, and the corporation (ABad, ACad, and AC, respectively) used the
same scales.

Kluwer Journal
@ats-ss11/data11/kluwer/journals/mark/v10n1art5 COMPOSED: 11/20/98 8:43 am. PG.POS. 5 SESSION: 11
 68 SHEININ, BIEHAL

We measured beliefs in two ways. First, nine corporate and seventeen brand beliefs
were measured using seven-point semantic differential scales, anchored by unlikely/likely.
Second, corporate ad and brand ad beliefs, used for structural modelling, were derived
from subjects’ thought protocols. Two independent coders trained by the authors coded the
protocols for belief valence (positive, negative and neutral). A log of coding discrepancies
indicated a 98% agreement between the two coders. To control for individual differences
in the number of thoughts, two indices were formed by dividing a subjects’s total number
of positive corporate (brand) ad thoughts by total corporate (brand) ad thoughts.

3. Results

3.1 Preliminary factor analyses

We performed three factor analyses with varimax rotation to refine and check measures.
The first used the nine corporate beliefs, and the resulting Scree Test revealed a single-
factor solution accounting for 40% of variance. The four beliefs underlying the factor
were summed to develop the corporate beliefs measure, BC (Cronbach alpha ⫽ 0.84). The
second factor analysis of the seventeen brand beliefs revealed a three-factor solution
accounting for 60% of variance. The factors were interpreted as representing brand quality
(Cronbach alpha ⫽ 0.84), brand image (Cronbach alpha ⫽ 0.85) and corporate-ad derived
beliefs, that is, beliefs originating in the corporate ad subjects associated with the brand
(Cronbach alpha ⫽ 0.71). Finally, a confirmatory factor analysis to check the validity of
the four attitude constructs showed the constructs were valid and independent (AGFI ⫽
.869, RMR ⫽ .068, p ⬍ .0001).

3.2 Data Analysis

First, task involvement, category familiarity, category involvement, brand familiarity,

brand interest, and brand knowledge were examined as covariates in 2 (corporate ad
retrieval cue) x 2 (brand retrieval cue) ANCOVAs. None were significant. Then, to test the
research propositions, 2 (corporate ad retrieval) x 2 (brand retrieval cue) ANOVAs were
run with different dependent variables. Finally, to explore the processes underlying AB
formation, we estimated structural equations models.
With brand quality as the dependent variable there was a significant interaction effect
(F3,158 ⫽ 9.81; p ⬍ 0.01; ␻2 ⫽ .04; see Figure 1, Graph A). With New Balance absent,
brand quality was stronger when Shenandoah was present (M ⫽ 5.40) versus absent (M ⫽
4.61; t39 ⫽ 2.72; p ⬍ 0.01). However, with New Balance present, brand quality was the
same when Shenandoah was present (M ⫽ 4.92) and absent (M ⫽ 5.29; p ⬎ 0.10). This
general pattern of results was found with the other measures.

Kluwer Journal
@ats-ss11/data11/kluwer/journals/mark/v10n1art5 COMPOSED: 11/20/98 8:43 am. PG.POS. 6 SESSION: 11
CORPORATE ADVERTISING PASS-THROUGH ONTO THE BRAND 69

Figure 1. The three significant interactions.

With brand image as the dependent variable the interaction effect was weaker (F3,158 ⫽
3.39; p ⬍ 0.07; ␻2 ⫽ .02). With New Balance absent, brand image was stronger with
Shenandoah present (M ⫽ 5.04) versus absent (M ⫽ 4.16; t39⫽ 2.49; p ⬍ 0.05. However,

Kluwer Journal
@ats-ss11/data11/kluwer/journals/mark/v10n1art5 COMPOSED: 11/20/98 8:43 am. PG.POS. 7 SESSION: 11
 70 SHEININ, BIEHAL

with New Balance present, brand image was the same when Shenandoah was present (M
⫽ 4.72) and absent (M ⫽ 4.71; p ⬎ 0.90).
When corporate-ad derived brand beliefs were the dependent variable there was also a
significant interaction effect (F3,158 ⫽ 5.12; p ⬍ 0.05; ␻2 ⫽ .02; see Figure 1, Graph B).
Without the New Balance cue, corporate-ad derived beliefs were stronger with the
Shenandoah cue present (M ⫽ 4.51) versus absent (M ⫽ 3.77; t39 ⫽ 2.10; p ⬍ 0.05).
However, with the New Balance cue these beliefs were the same when Shenandoah was
present (M ⫽ 3.42) and absent (M ⫽ 3.70; p ⬎ 0.30).
Finally, with AB as the dependent variable there was a significant interaction effect
(F3,158 ⫽ 7.01; p ⬍ 0.01; ␻2 ⫽ .03; see Figure 1, Graph C). With New Balance absent,
AB was more positive with Shenandoah present (M ⫽ 4.71) versus absent (M ⫽ 3.53; t39
⫽ 3.83; p ⬍ 0.001). However, with New Balance present, AB was the same when Shenan-
doah was present (M ⫽ 4.24) and absent (M ⫽ 4.27; p ⬎ 0.90). All these results are
consistent with the proposition that pass-through occurs, but is moderated by the retrieval
of subjects’ pre-existing brand knowledge.
One reviewer suggested examining the potential moderating effect of brand familiarity
on pass-through in the corporate ad and brand retrieval cues present condition. Familiarity
was a significant moderator on brand attitude (p ⬍ .05), but not on brand quality, brand
image, or corporate ad-derived beliefs (each p ⬎ .20). Thus, at least on brand attitude,
corporate ad pass-through was significantly less when subjects were more familiar with
the brand.
Next, to examine the processes underlying pass-through, structural equations were
estimated for each experimental condition. Guided by previous research (MacKenzie et al.
1986), the models included relationships among corporate ad beliefs (BCad) and attitude
(ACad), corporate beliefs (BC) and attitude (AC), brand ad beliefs (BBad) and attitude
(ABad), and brand quality (BB) and attitude (AB). BCad and BBad were derived from
subjects’ thought protocols. We also ran structural equations using brand image instead of
brand quality. Because the results are similar, we report only the relationships specified
above.
The model for subjects exposed to brand ads with Shenandoah but without New Bal-
ance retrieval cues had good fit (AGFI ⫽ 0.99, RMR ⫽ 0.0008, p ⬍ 0.21). Overall, there
are two interesting findings (see Figure 2, Model A). First, ACad showed a dual-mediation
effect of BCad on both BC and AC. This finding is consistent with the literature on brand
advertising impacts (MacKenzie et al. 1986). Second, pass-through was found at both the
belief and the attitudinal levels (BC was significantly related to BB, and ACad and AC were
both significantly related to AB, respectively).
The model for subjects exposed to brand ads containing both Shenandoah and New
Balance cues had moderate fit (AGFI ⫽ 0.81, RMR ⫽ 0.0060, p ⬍ 0.69). The results
(Figure 2, Model B) also show a dual-mediation effect of ACad on BC and AC. However,
there was no evidence of corporate advertising pass-through onto either brand beliefs or
attitudes. Instead, only BB significantly explained AB. The results for the remaining two
conditions are essentially the same, that is, there was no evidence of pass-through, and we
do not describe them further.

Kluwer Journal
@ats-ss11/data11/kluwer/journals/mark/v10n1art5 COMPOSED: 11/20/98 8:43 am. PG.POS. 8 SESSION: 11
CORPORATE ADVERTISING PASS-THROUGH ONTO THE BRAND 71

Figure 2. Structural equations analysis.

Kluwer Journal
@ats-ss11/data11/kluwer/journals/mark/v10n1art5 COMPOSED: 11/20/98 8:43 am. PG.POS. 9 SESSION: 11
 72 SHEININ, BIEHAL

4. Discussion

The experiment demonstrates that corporate ad pass-through to brand knowledge can

occur, but is moderated by the retrieval of consumers’ pre-existing brand knowledge.
Further, even though corporate ad information was not directly related to brand quality,
when pass-through occurred both brand beliefs and attitudes were affected. By providing
empirical validation of pass-through, our research confirms managers’ and researchers’
intuitions (Hartigan and Finch 1986; Winkleman 1985) and extends the corporate adver-
tising literature. It also extends the brand literature, by broadening the scope of ad pro-
cessing models and giving additional insights into the importance of advertising memory
on consumers’ brand information processing.
Our results have important implications for brand managers. If brand managers want to
take advantage of positive corporate ad knowledge, they should consider using certain
tactics, like adding corporate ad symbols or slogans to brand ads, or including the cor-
porate name prominently in their product names. Such tactics may help consumers trans-
fer their corporate ad knowledge onto the brand. Also, they should measure corporate ad
knowledge in Tracking Studies to understand its role in brand ad effectiveness and brand
knowledge change.
The significance of the results reported here depends on a number of limitations com-
mon to much academic advertising research designed to understand fundamental process-
ing phenomena, like student samples and a single, forced ad exposure. Other study
limitations suggest interesting avenues for future research. We did not measure evalua-
tions of corporate and brand names, but different relative evaluations may moderate
pass-through. For example, extremely negative evaluations of the corporate name may
pass through regardless of brand knowledge retrieval. Future research should examine
how differences in evaluations of corporation and brand names moderate pass-through.
In addition, we manipulate brand knowledge retrieval, but not brand knowledge itself.
We used New Balance, a moderately familiar brand, but future research might show
pass-through differs greatly for familiar versus unknown or newly-introduced brands. This
would be consistent with our finding that familiarity moderated pass-through onto brand
attitude. Understanding such moderating effects would help guide managers’ use of cor-
porate advertising, for example, to prepare markets for new product launches (Garbett
1983).
Finally, we exposed all subjects to the same corporate ad. In reality, corporate adver-
tising uses a variety of messages and creative strategies (Garbett 1983). Future research
may show pass-through is influenced by the tactics employed in corporate advertising. For
example, 3M’s corporate advertising illustrates its innovative positioning using a picture
of its Post It Notes product, a tactic which may encourage pass-through. In sum, we
believe research into corporate advertising pass-through has much to offer both managers
and academic researchers alike.

Acknowledgments

The authors, who contributed equally to this research, thank Professor Richard M. Durand
and two anonymous reviewers for their comments on an earlier draft.

Kluwer Journal
@ats-ss11/data11/kluwer/journals/mark/v10n1art5 COMPOSED: 11/20/98 8:43 am. PG.POS. 10 SESSION: 11
CORPORATE ADVERTISING PASS-THROUGH ONTO THE BRAND 73

References

Alba, Joseph W. and J. Wesley Hutchinson. (1987). “Dimensions of Consumer Expertise,” Journal of Consumer
Research 13 (March), 411–54.
Lynch, Jr., ______, ______, and John G. (1991). “Memory and Decision Making,” in The Handbook of Con-
sumer Behavior, Thomas S. Robertson and Harold H. Kassarjian editors, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
1–49.
Crocker, Jennifer, Susan T. Fiske and Shelley Taylor. (1984). “Schematic Bases of Belief Change,” in Attitudinal
Judgment, ed. J.R. Eiser, New York: Springer-Verlag, 197–226.
Fiske, Susan T. and Mark A. Pavelchak. (1986). “Category-Based Versus Piecemeal-Based Affective Responses:
Developments in Schema-triggered Affect,” in The Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of
Social Behavior, eds. Richard M. Sorrentino and E. Tory Higgins, New York: Guilford, 167–203.
Garbett, Thomas F. (1983). “Researching Corporate Advertising,” Journal of Advertising Research 23, 1,
February/March, 33–37.
Hartigan, Maureen F. and Peter Finch. (1986). “The New Emphasis on Strategy in Corporate Advertising,”
Business Marketing (February), 42–49.
Heath, Robert L. and Richard Alan Nelson. (1985). “Image and Issue Advertising: A Corporate and Public
Policy Perspective,” Journal of Marketing 49, 58–68.
Javagli, Rajshekhar, Mark B. Taylor, Andrew C. Gross and Edward Lampman. (1994). “Awareness of Sponsor-
ship and Corporate Image: An Empirical Investigation,” Journal of Advertising 23, (December), 47–58.
Keller, Kevin Lane. (1993). “Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity,” Jour-
nal of Marketing 57 (January), 1–22.
______. (1987). “Memory Factors in Advertising: The Effect of Advertising Retrieval Cues on Brand Evalua-
tions,” Journal of Consumer Research 14 (December), 316–333.
Lynch, John G. and Thomas K. Srull. (1982). “Memory and Attentional Factors in Consumer Choice: Concepts
and Research Methods,” Journal of Consumer Research 9, 18–37.
______, Howard Marmorstein and Michael F. Weigold. (1988). “Choices from Sets Including Remembered
Brands: Use of Recalled Attributes and Prior Overall Evaluations,” Journal of Consumer Research 15 (Sep-
tember), 169–84.
MacKenzie, Scott B., Richard Lutz, and George E. Belch. (1986). “The Role of Attitude Toward the Ad as a
Mediator of Advertising Effectiveness: A Test of Competing Hypotheses,” Journal of Marketing Research 23,
(May), 130–143.
Mitchell, Andrew A. and Peter A. Dacin. (1996). “The Assessment of Alternative Measures of Consumer
Expertise,” Journal of Consumer Research Volume 23, 3 (December), 219–39.
Rothschild, Michael L. (1987). Advertising, Massachusetts: Heath and Company.
Schumann, David M., Jan M. Hathcote, and Susan West. (1991). “Corporate Advertising in America: A Review
of Published Studies on Use, Measurement, and Effectiveness,” Journal of Advertising 20 (September), 35–56.
Winkleman, Michael. (1985). “Corporate Advertising,” Public Relations Journal 41 (December), 38–39.

Kluwer Journal
@ats-ss11/data11/kluwer/journals/mark/v10n1art5 COMPOSED: 11/20/98 8:43 am. PG.POS. 11 SESSION: 11