Summary
This study was conducted in order to examine brand preferences for three well-known brands of chewing gum, and the effects advertising may have on brand preference and purchase intention. A total of 83 respondents successfully completed the online survey, and the data was then analyzed using various statistical tests in SPSS, which included: correlated t-Test, between groups t-Test, chi-squared significance test, frequency, frequency counting, simple correlation coefficient, regression analysis, discriminant analysis, ANOVA/MANOVA, and factor analysis. The results from the assorted tests were statistically analyzed to determine whether or not the specific findings could be projected onto the population as a whole.
The three brands of chewing gum examined were Winterfresh, Big Red, and Orbit. Orbit was undoubtedly the favored gum, with the brand having the highest brand preference mean score pre-exposure to the print advertisement, and remained the highest post viewing. The order of pre-exposure and post-exposure preference for the three brands was, Orbit, Winterfresh, and then Big Red. Though there were not deviating differences between the pre and post ad exposure change scores for each brand, it is interesting to note that Big Red had the most negative change scores from pre to post ad exposure change score. We can conclude that Big Red’s print ad was the least favored advertisement though the difference in preference between all three assorted brands was not that great.
The Winterfresh brand had the most individuals favor the brand more after viewing the magazine advertisement. Big Red had the largest amount of respondent attitudes stay the same which was not necessarily a negative outcome, but illustrated that there was room for creative improvement. Orbit had the largest amount of individuals move down pre to post advertisement screening. This could be explained by respondents having a very high perception of the Orbit brand before viewing the print ad, that after viewing all three ads, some respondents wanted to distribute a few points amongst other brands (possibly Winterfresh).
It can also be said that there was little connection and relationship between how people viewed the three brands on the five point Likert item scale and how they viewed the print ads. It also appeared that the ten Likert items did not discriminant between the up and down-movers at a high level. Furthermore, the MANOVA results illustrated that there was little to moderate difference between the mean scores of all the brand characteristics and those that are male and female and whether they moved up, down, or stayed the same after ad exposure.
This study did have limitations worth mentioning. A non-random convenience sample was utilized rather than the preferred random sample. Randomization was not used, but necessary and needed when trying to correct or minimize order biases. A control group was not employed either, signifying that the environment and external variables could not be controlled for. The purpose of this study was to measure the effects of print advertisements on brand preference and buying behavior, but it is difficult to gauge the influence of a single print advertisement when consumers are bombarded by so many media vehicles and ad clutter throughout the course of one day.
Although this study did not indicate large differences between each brand, it certainly provides interesting information and can function as a solid starting point and basis for future analysis and discussion of divergent brand preferences among various brands of chewing gum.